Lincoln University Digital Thesis Copyright Statement The digital copy of this thesis is protected by the Copyright Act 1994 (New Zealand). This thesis may be consulted by you, provided you comply with the provisions of the Act and the following conditions of use: 


you will use the copy only for the purposes of research or private study you will recognise the author's right to be identified as the author of the thesis and due acknowledgement will be made to the author where appropriate you will obtain the author's permission before publishing any material from the thesis. “We can’t manage what we don’t measure”:
Co-producing people and water with New Zealand’s Resource
Management (Measurement and Reporting of Water Takes)
Regulations 2010
A thesis
submitted in partial fulfilment
of the requirements for the Degree of
Master of Natural Resource Management and Ecological Engineering
at
Lincoln University
by
Fiona Myles
Lincoln University
2014
Abstract of a thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the Degree of Master of Natural Resource Management and
Ecological Engineering.
Abstract
“We can’t manage what we don’t measure”:
Co-producing people and water with New Zealand’s Resource Management
(Measurement and Reporting of Water Takes) Regulations 2010
by
Fiona Myles
As in many other parts of the world, freshwater resources have become under increasing pressure in
New Zealand. In Canterbury, where 60% of the total volume of freshwater for consumptive use in the
country is allocated, the increasing demand for water amongst competing users has resulted in
freshwater management becoming highly contentious. This study examines the role that the
introduction of a new standard of quantification (the Resource Management (Measurement and
Reporting of Water Takes) Regulations 2010) has played in reconfiguring the relationships that have
underpinned freshwater management in the region in the past. The conceptual analytical framework
of co-production, and its common pathways of making identities, discourses, representations, and
institutions are utilised to reveal how the new standard has altered these relations. It is concluded
that the symmetry and filtering capacity of the Regulations has reconfigured the co-production of
natural and social orders, and that the form that the new configurations have taken has been shaped
by the power and control, the path dependence, and the network of supporting standards, of the
new regulations. Although, the introduction of these regulations has been widely supported, it is
considered unlikely that they will reduce the existing sources of contention in freshwater
management in Canterbury significantly.
Keywords: co-production, standards, regulation, freshwater resource management, Rakaia-Selwyn,
Canterbury.
ii
Acknowledgements
Firstly, I would like to thank my research participants. Your input has been the cornerstone of this
research and I appreciate you taking the time to share your experiences and opinions with me.
To my supervision team of Dr. Ronlyn Duncan and Dr. Ann Brower, thank you for your support and
guidance over the course of this research. Your enthusiam and confidence in my work has been of
great value to me.
I would also like to thank Meadow Mushrooms Ltd. for providing me with financial assistance during
the preparation of this thesis.
iii
Table of Contents
Abstract........................................................................................................................................ii
Acknowledgements .....................................................................................................................iii
Table of Contents......................................................................................................................... iv
List of Tables............................................................................................................................... vii
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................ viii
Chapter 1 Introduction..............................................................................................................1
1.1 The Regulations ...............................................................................................................2
1.2 The Regulations as a case study ........................................................................................3
1.3 Purpose of this research...................................................................................................4
1.4 Structure of this thesis .....................................................................................................4
Chapter 2 Literature Review......................................................................................................6
2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................6
2.2 Background .....................................................................................................................6
2.2.1 Freshwater resources in Canterbury and their management...................................6
2.2.2 The need for more information to address current issues.......................................7
2.2.3 The review of consents in the Rakaia-Selwyn Groundwater Allocation Zone ............8
2.3 The development of the Regulations............................................................................... 10
2.4 Water measurement in New Zealand prior to the Regulations.......................................... 11
2.5 International experience in water metering..................................................................... 12
2.5.1 Experience in Australia ....................................................................................... 12
2.6 Summary....................................................................................................................... 15
Chapter 3 Theoretical Framework ........................................................................................... 17
3.1 Quantification and the use of numbers ........................................................................... 17
3.2 The co-production conceptual framework....................................................................... 20
3.2.1 The application of co-production ........................................................................ 21
3.2.2 Co-production of natural and social order ........................................................... 21
3.3 The role of standards ..................................................................................................... 24
3.3.2 Types of standard............................................................................................... 25
3.3.3 Characteristics of standards................................................................................ 26
3.3.4 Standards and the Regulations............................................................................ 29
3.4 Summary....................................................................................................................... 30
Chapter 4 Research Aim, Questions and Methodology............................................................. 32
4.1 Research aim and guiding questions ............................................................................... 32
4.2 Research Methodology .................................................................................................. 32
4.2.1 Defining and justifying the case........................................................................... 33
4.3 Data Collection .............................................................................................................. 36
4.3.1 Semi-structured interviews................................................................................. 36
4.3.2 Selection of participants ..................................................................................... 37
4.3.3 Human ethics..................................................................................................... 39
4.3.4 Document analysis ............................................................................................. 39
iv
4.4
4.5
Analysis of data ............................................................................................................. 39
Summary....................................................................................................................... 40
Chapter 5 Results....................................................................................................................41
5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 41
5.2 Background and context of results.................................................................................. 41
5.2.1 Early adopters of metering ................................................................................. 41
5.2.2 Metering trial..................................................................................................... 42
5.2.3 Rakaia-Selwyn consent review ............................................................................ 42
5.3 The implementation of the Regulations........................................................................... 44
5.3.1 Implementation in Canterbury shaped by the scale of the task ............................. 44
5.3.2 Providing consistency......................................................................................... 45
5.3.3 Challenges for water users during the implementation......................................... 46
5.3.4 Challenges facing ECan and industry during the implementation .......................... 47
5.4 Data use in farm management........................................................................................ 48
5.4.1 Data as proof ..................................................................................................... 49
5.4.2 Data to manage compliance in arable farming ..................................................... 49
5.4.3 Data to manage compliance in dairy farming ....................................................... 51
5.4.4 Data use in the longer term ................................................................................ 52
5.5 Water metering as a science tool .................................................................................... 53
5.5.1 From compliance to science................................................................................ 55
5.5.2 Accuracy of water metering................................................................................ 56
5.5.3 Water abstraction as a proxy for water use.......................................................... 58
5.6 Outcomes of metering – fear of the future ...................................................................... 59
5.6.1 Increased scrutiny of water users........................................................................ 59
5.6.2 Increased enforcement ...................................................................................... 59
5.6.3 Highlighting unused water.................................................................................. 61
5.6.4 Central Plains..................................................................................................... 63
5.7 Summary....................................................................................................................... 63
Chapter 6 Discussion...............................................................................................................65
6.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 65
6.2 Co-production in the implementation of the Regulations ................................................. 65
6.2.1 Making identities through standards ................................................................... 66
6.2.2 Making representations and discourses through standards .................................. 69
6.2.3 Making institutions through standards ................................................................ 74
6.3 The role of the Regulations in co-production ................................................................... 76
6.3.1 The Regulations as a filter type standard ............................................................. 76
6.3.2 The Regulations as a mode of power and control ................................................. 78
6.3.3 Path dependence and the nested, layered and interlocking nature of standards.... 85
6.3.4 Nested, layered and interlocking constructions.................................................... 93
6.4 Standards and co-production in the context of freshwater management in Canterbury ..... 93
Chapter 7 Conclusions.............................................................................................................97
7.1 Conclusions drawn from this research............................................................................. 97
7.1.1 Making identities ............................................................................................... 97
7.1.2 Making representations...................................................................................... 98
7.1.3 Making discourses.............................................................................................. 99
7.1.4 Making institutions .......................................................................................... 100
7.2 Research limitations and future research direction ........................................................ 102
v
7.2.1
7.2.2
7.2.3
Limitations of the theoretical framework........................................................... 102
Limitations of the research methodology........................................................... 102
Possible future research ................................................................................... 103
Appendix A The Resource Management (Measurement and Reporting of Water Takes)
Regulations 2010 .................................................................................................................. 104
Appendix B Interview questions............................................................................................ 112
Questions used for semi-structured interviews with water users.............................................. 112
Questions used for semi-structured interviews with Environment Canterbury .......................... 113
Questions used for semi-structured interviews with industry service providers......................... 114
References ................................................................................................................................116
vi
List of Tables
Table 2.1
Table 3.1
Table 4.1
Summary of resource consent metering requirements following the consent
review. ................................................................................................................ 10
Examples of the use of different types of standard for objects and people............... 25
Summary of the research participants. .................................................................. 38
vii
List of Figures
Figure 4.1
Groundwater allocation zones of Canterbury. Image taken from
http://ecan.govt.nz/services/online-services/monitoring/groundwaterallocation/Pages/zone-map.aspx on 21/08/2013.................................................... 35
viii
Chapter 1
Introduction
In November 2010, the Resource Management (Measurement and Reporting of Water Takes)
Regulations (the Regulations) came into force in New Zealand within the existing framework of the
Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). For the first time, these regulations require all those who
hold permits to abstract and consume freshwater over a specified threshold to measure and report
their actual water consumption. These Regulations have been developed as a tool to assist with the
long term planning and management of New Zealand’s freshwater resources (MfE, 2013c).
The Regulations are being implemented in three stages, the first of which had a deadline of 10
November 2012, with the later stages having deadlines in November 2014 and November 2016.
Although the Regulations have only been partially implemented, the first stage of implementation
accounts for nearly 90% of all allocated water in Canterbury. It is intended that by investigating the
implementation of the Regulations at this early stage, the findings of this research will be useful for
the future implementation of the water metering programme. Furthermore, the experiences in
Australia following the introduction of similar requirements for accurate water measurement
(Collett, 2010) provide a useful insight into the consequences that may arise here as the
implementation of the Regulations progresses.
The Regulations are a form of standard in that they provide a set of rules to which the actors
involved must adhere. These rules facilitate and constrain behaviours and practices to particular,
accepted ways. Standards of this form are ubiquitous in modern life, embedded within social norms
and technologies, as well as the relationships between the two (Bowker & Star, 2000; Busch, 2010,
2011; Star & Lampland, 2009). Although standards most obviously apply to people and technologies
(through laws, regulations, industry standards for example), in reality, nature is also subject to
standards. For example, our understanding of nature typically arises out of the highly standardised
scientific process, whereby the environment becomes known through the (often standardised)
interpretation of a collection of measured and categorised data, usually obtained via standardised
methods. Standards are therefore a mode through which both the social and natural are
constructed.
This research investigates the challenges that have arisen out of the implementation of the
Regulations, as an example of the introduction of a standard being introduced into a previously rulefree area. Sheila Jasanoff’s critical co-production conceptual framework is used to examine the role
that standards play in creating or altering the previously taken for granted relationships between
1
natural and social systems. This analysis will also identify potential implications and consequences
(intended and unintended) for freshwater management heading into the future as a result of the
introduction of the Regulations.
1.1 The Regulations
The Regulations (included in Appendix A) apply to all water permits (commonly referred to as
resource consents) that allow for water to be drawn at a rate of greater than five litres/second with
the exception of cases where water is drawn for non-consumptive purposes (i.e. cases where water
is returned to the same water body at or near the point of abstraction, with no significant time delay)
(reg 4). This therefore includes most uses for fresh water including irrigation, drinking water supply
and industrial uses, whilst excluding major non-consumptive uses such as hydro-power generation.
For those water permits to which the Regulations apply, it is required that records be kept
demonstrating a continuous measurement of the water taken over time, including periods when no
water is taken and periods when water is taken in excess of the permit conditions. These records
must be kept in a format deemed suitable for auditing by the regional council that has granted the
water permit. In most cases the records must state the volume taken on a daily basis, but in some
circumstances where this is inappropriate, regional council may grant approval for weekly recordings
to be taken.
The device or system used to monitor the water taken must measure the volume of water taken to
within ±5 % for water abstracted using a pressured pipe system, though a lesser accuracy of ±10 % is
acceptable for non-pressure flow conditions (e.g. an open channel, race, or partially full pipe driven
by gravity). The Regulations also require that the device or system must be verified in situ as meeting
this level of accuracy by a suitably qualified person (reg 6(6)).
To assist with the implementation of the Regulations to existing water permits, a staged, transitional
approach has been taken, based on the abstraction rate of the permits. The Regulations apply to all
permits allowing abstraction in excess of 20 litres/second from November 2012. But the Regulations
do not commence for permits allowing lower rates of abstraction until November 2014 (abstraction
permits between 10 and 20 litres/second) and 2016 (permits of less than 10 litres/second). Therefore
at this stage, only the largest of the existing permits and any water permits granted since the
commencement of the Regulations in 2010 are currently required to meet the requirements of the
Regulations, though it is expected that some water users with permits meeting the lower thresholds
will also have implemented the Regulations as pre-emptive measures.
2
1.2 The Regulations as a case study
Standards, both formal and informal, largely govern how the world exists in that they “shape not
only the physical world around us but our social lives and even our very selves” (Busch, 2011, p. 2).
They are embodied within the technologies, conventions and infrastructure that allows for society to
function in the way that it does (Busch, 2000, 2011; Star & Lampland, 2009).
As stated, the Regulations are a standard that must be met by permit holders. Nested within this
standard is a vast range of other, interlocking and interrelated standards. Some exist as a result of
prior processes, and some have developed alongside the new Regulations. While they are not
specifically referred to within the Regulations, these standards are necessary for the effective
implementation and operation of the Regulations. For example, standards are embodied within the
technology used for the measurement of water (the dimensions and construction materials of a
gauging control section of an open channel system, or the components used to construct a water
meter for a pipe section), and there are standards for the installation of each piece of measurement
technology to ensure it performs as intended by the manufacturer (Myles, Mahalingam, Beech, &
Strang, 2011). To ensure that the flow data produced as a result of the Regulations is useful, each
permit holder must also report their flow data in a standardised manner. Furthermore, it will be
necessary to develop additional standards in the future to address the effects and consequences,
perhaps unforeseen or unintended, of the implementation of the Regulations.
Standards are a social phenomenon applied to people and objects: “standards are always relative to
the infrastructure within/upon/sometimes against which they are implemented” (Star & Lampland,
2009, p. 7). According to Jasanoff (2004b), society’s understanding of the environment is a sociocultural product derived from the highly standardised practices, processes and methods of science
and the deployment of technologies in developing this knowledge. The focus of this research is the
role that standards play in the socio-cultural process of the co-production of nature and society.
Jasanoff describes the parallel development and ordering of nature and society as “shorthand for the
proposition that the ways in which we know and represent the world (both nature and society) are
inseparable from the ways in which we choose to live in it” (Jasanoff, 2004a, p. 2).
The Regulations provide a case for developing an understanding of the role that standards (both the
Regulations and those invoked and nested within them) play in the ordering of our natural and social
systems. Co-production offers a suitable frame through which to view the case study by improving
“explanatory power by thinking of natural and social orders as being produced together”(Jasanoff,
2004a, p. 2). The case study will focus on the agricultural sector (as opposed to other water users,
such as industry) as this is where the impacts of the Regulations are likely to have the greatest
impact, because it is an area previously subject to a much lesser level of regulation (or
3
standardisation) with regard to freshwater use. The research will be conducted in a sub-section of
Canterbury, the Rakaia-Selwyn Groundwater Allocation Zone (RSGAZ), as an area representative of
the wider region.
1.3 Purpose of this research
The aim of this research is to evaluate the potential implications of the introduction of the
Regulations for freshwater resources in Canterbury in the future and to understand how they might
influence the long term management of these resources in Canterbury. To achieve this aim, the
research objectives are to:
a) Examine how the Regulations have disrupted and reconfigured established social norms and
understandings of the environment, and thus, their role in creating instability and reordering of social and natural systems;
b) Identify the consequences (both intended and unintended) of the Regulations and the
challenges in their implementation.
In order to meet the objectives of this research, the following research question has been used as a
guide:
•
What role have the Regulations played in reconfiguring previously taken for granted
relationships that underpin freshwater management in Canterbury?
1.4 Structure of this thesis
Chapter 2 outlines a summary of the relevant literature, providing detailed background information
into the management of freshwater resources in Canterbury and the context surrounding the
introduction of the Regulations. The introduction of accurate water metering, similar to what the
Regulations require, in northern Victoria, Australia is then discussed.
The theoretical framework used in this research is outlined in Chapter 3. This includes a brief
summary of the literature regarding the role of quantification and numbers in modern society, an
introduction to the conceptual framework of co-production, and the theory of standards. Chapter 4
returns the research aims and objectives, and outlines the methodology that has been used in this
study. It provides justification for the case that has been used and discusses the ethical
considerations that have been taken into account during the research.
The results of my study are described in Chapter 5. These results are then dicussed in Chapter 6 and
linked to the theoretical framework outlined in Chapter 3, as well as in relation to the context of
4
freshwater management in Canterbury. The final section, Chapter 7, will provide a summary of the
study, draw conclusions and reflect upon the limitations of the research and future research
direction.
5
Chapter 2
Literature Review
2.1 Introduction
As in many parts of the world, the sustainable management of freshwater resources in New Zealand
is becoming an increasingly significant issue (Lennox, Proctor, & Russell, 2011). The continued
success of New Zealand is heavily dependent on these resources as the primary sector makes up a
major portion of the country’s total export income, and this is expected to grow in the future (PCE,
2013) . However, due to the many competing users for these resources, freshwater has become a
subject characterised by conflict, particularly in the region of Canterbury.
In this section, I provide a review of the current literature surrounding freshwater management in
New Zealand and Canterbury to explore the circumstances under which the Regulations were
introduced. Literature originating from Australia is also examined, to provide an international context
to this research.
2.2 Background
2.2.1 Freshwater resources in Canterbury and their management
The Canterbury region, located on the east coast of New Zealand’s South Island, has a wealth of
freshwater resources despite having a relatively dry climate. Large snow-melt fed alpine rivers, rivers
fed by rainfall in the foothills of the Southern Alps, and lowland spring-fed streams are all connected
by a complex network of aquifers at a variety of depths (Creech, Jenkins, Hill, & Low, 2010; Duncan,
2013; Gunningham, 2011b; Jenkins, 2007; Weber, Memon, & Painter, 2011) . These same water
resources have shaped the landscape, creating expansive plains on which agricultural production is
centred.
However, over the past 20 years the demand for water has risen dramatically as agricultural
production in the region has shifted from the traditional dryland farms (mainly sheep and beef
production) of the past, to the much more profitable and water intensive land uses such as dairying,
which rely on irrigation (Jenkins, 2007; PCE, 2013; Weber et al., 2011). The Canterbury region alone
now accounts for 60% of all freshwater allocated for consumptive use and contains 70% of the
irrigated land in New Zealand (Gunningham, 2011b; Jenkins, 2007; Weber et al., 2011). Furthermore,
approximately 90% of all water allocated for consumptive use within Canterbury is used for
irrigation, and the area of land in the region under irrigation is expected to continue to expand
(Jenkins, 2007; PCE, 2013).
6
The management of freshwater resources in New Zealand relies on the legislative basis provided by
the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), under which the primary responsibility for managing
natural resources such as freshwater lies with regional councils (Gunningham, 2008; Lennox et al.,
2011). Although initially welcomed as a novel way of managing land, water, soil and air in an
integrated manner, in time the RMA has come to be criticised for having too narrow a focus on
effects, and in many respects, failing to achieve its overarching aim of sustainable resource
management (Gunningham, 2008; Lennox et al., 2011). The deficiencies of the RMA have become
particularly apparent in the management of freshwater resources where key stakeholders have
expressed concern about the “adversarial, costly, and time consuming planning processes”
associated with the Act (Lomax, Memon, & Painter, 2010, p. 3).
Under the RMA, regional councils have two primary mechanisms for allocating and managing
freshwater resources: regional plans and water permits, commonly referred to as resource consents.
The Canterbury Regional Council, known as Environment Canterbury (ECan) only introduced a
regional plan in 2004, and as a result, the allocation and management of resources in the region has
relied heavily on the use of resource consents (Gunningham, 2008; Lennox et al., 2011). This has led
to a system of allocation of freshwater resources based on the principle of first-come-first-served
(Gunningham, 2008; Jenkins, 2007).
Given the rapid increase in demand for water resources in Canterbury over the past 20 years by
multiple and competing uses, it is unsurprising that the allocation and management of freshwater
resources in the region has become highly contested (Gunningham, 2008; Lennox et al., 2011; Lomax
et al., 2010). With irrigation the reason behind the vast majority of applications for water resource
consents, “agriculture is a major driver of water allocation and quality concerns in the region”
(Lomax et al., 2010, p. 25).
2.2.2 The need for more information to address current issues
The failings of the tools available under the RMA to effectively manage Canterbury’s freshwater
resources and the conflict that have arisen as a result have motivated a change in governance
approach. The Canterbury Water Management Strategy (CWMS) is a non-statutory, collaborative
planning process begun in 2008, following on from a series of related projects initiated in 1998. It is
intended to address the long-standing issues within freshwater resource management in Canterbury
(Duncan, 2013; Lennox et al., 2011; Lomax et al., 2010; Memon, Painter, & Weber, 2010). During the
early consultation carried for the CWMS, a key concern raised was the lack of accurate information
regarding the actual water use within Canterbury. For water resources to be managed effectively it
was therefore considered necessary to “undertake new science and metering initiatives in order to
produce more and better information about water resources and hydrogeology (groundwater) in
7
particular” (Weber et al., 2011, p. 52). The need for consistent collection of data has also been stated
as necessary by the Land and Water Forum (Land and Water Forum, 2010).
One of the sources of contention surrounding freshwater in Canterbury has stemmed from the
inability for stakeholders to agree on the science used to inform resource management decision
making. Two predictive models have been developed to describe the hydrogeological characteristics
of the region, each with supporters and detractors (Weber et al., 2011). ECan, along with many
environmentalists has favoured the ‘bathtub’ model which projects the resources as a highly
integrated whole, where withdrawal at any location will have an immediate effect on the water level
everywhere. This model assumes that the series of aquifers under the Canterbury Plains have a high
degree of connectivity. Many farmers, irrigators and developers meanwhile favour the ‘Aqualinc’
model which suggests that the presence of impermeable layers greatly reduces the connectivity of
aquifers, thus impacts from withdrawal of water will not automatically be widely felt. As the research
of Weber et al. (2011) shows, many of the stakeholders believe that improved monitoring (such as
water metering) is the only way to move forward from this ‘science impasse’, as each side wants
their chosen model to be the one that guides future water management policy decisions.
This void in the information available to inform models is a result of a lack of monitoring of resource
consents once they had been granted. Gunningham (2011b) argues that the lack of effective water
measurement has made it very difficult for ECan to estimate how much allocated water is being
consumed “in aggregate” (p. 45), contributing to the lack of certainty around allocation of freshwater
resources in Canterbury. It was not until 2004 that ECan began to require the metering of water
takes as a standard condition on water permits (Gunningham, 2008). However, even with this
requirement implemented, in 2008 when the CWMS was initiated the vast majority of the estimated
18,000 water takes in Canterbury remained unmonitored. This was due to the inability for ECan to
apply new conditions to existing water permits, unless the permit holder applied for the existing
conditions to be altered or the permit had lapsed and was subject to an application for renewal.
Water permits in Canterbury have traditionally been granted for long time periods, often 35 years, in
reflection of the significant financial investment required in developing irrigation infrastructure
(Gunningham, 2011b). The slow turnover of consents is considered one of the key barriers to
implementing water measurement on a region-wide scale through the resource consenting process.
2.2.3 The review of consents in the Rakaia-Selwyn Groundwater Allocation Zone
The increase in demand for water resources during the late 1990s and 2000s saw a large increase in
the number of water resource consents and the total volume of allocated water across Canterbury
(Jenkins, 2007). By the mid-2000s, many of the groundwater catchments in central Canterbury had
been classified as ‘red’ zones where the volume of allocated water within the catchment exceeds the
8
volume considered by ECan to be the upper limit for maintaining the long term sustainability of the
resource (Environment Canterbury Groundwater Resources, 2012). The increase in water abstraction
coincided with a period of drier than average years between the late 1990s and 2007, resulting in the
spring-fed lowland streams suffering from low or no flow for prolonged periods (Jenkins, 2007;
Weber et al., 2011).
The Rakaia-Selwyn groundwater allocation zone (RSGAZ), as it is defined in the Proposed Natural
Resources Regional Plan (PNRRP), is such a catchment and has been classified as a ‘red’ zone since
2004 (Environment Canterbury Groundwater Resources, 2012). In response to this designated overallocation, as well as concern about degradation of the lowland streams in the area, ECan announced
its Restorative Programme for Lowland Streams in 2006. The aim of this programme was to increase
flows in lowland streams to improve their ability to support aquatic ecosystems, and to improve the
reliability of supply for water users (Williams, 2006). To help meet these goals ECan further
announced that it would review the conditions on 523 water permits to abstract water from the
RSGAZ (Canterbury Regional Council, 2010).
The review process was directed towards achieving three primary outcomes for the water permits in
the RSGAZ, including:
•
The inclusion of an annual limit on total water abstracted;
•
The provision of water metering to enable actual water use to be quantified; and
•
Restrictions on abstractions directly linked to surface water flows during low flow conditions
(Williams, 2006).
A fourth outcome, the ability to vary seasonal limits based on the abundance of the groundwater
resource (referred to as ‘adaptive management’ by ECan), was also intended to be included in the
review process (Williams, 2006). However future management approaches such as adaptive
management were later considered to be outside of the scope of the review (Canterbury Regional
Council, 2010).
The hearing process for the review took place during 2009, with hearing commissioners releasing
their decision on 12 February 2010 (Canterbury Regional Council, 2010). The review successfully
introduced changes to the water permits in the RSGAZ in line with the outcomes stated above,
including the requirement for the installation of water meters on abstractions. A set of conditions
outlining the specifics of how water metering was to be carried out was developed as part of the
review based on different abstraction conditions, as summarised in Table 2.1 below.
9
Table 2.1
Summary of resource consent metering requirements following the consent review.
Abstraction Condition
Annual vol. ≥ 357,000 m3
Annual vol. < 357,000 m3 +
abstraction rate ≥ 5l/s
Annual vol. < 357,000 m3 +
abstraction rate < 5l/s
Any permit with a minimum flow
condition (i.e. those directly linked
to surface water flows)
Metering Requirements
Water metering & recording devices
Water use reported monthly
Water metering with pulse output
Water use reported annually
Water metering
Water use reported annually
Water metering & recording devices
Water use reported by telemetry
Deadline
30 September 2010
1 September 2011
1 September 2011
1 September 2011
The RSGAZ was therefore the first catchment in the Canterbury region where all major water takes
(those over five litres/second) were to be actively monitored (Canterbury Regional Council, 2010).
However, this progress came at a significant price. From the initiation of the programme in 2006, it
was close to four years before the final hearing decision was released. Additionally, because ECan
had initiated the review of existing consents, it had to bear the majority of the financial costs
associated with the process. During this period the relationship between the farmers of the zone and
ECan also suffered significantly. Although most of the conflict arose from the proposed restrictions
on abstractions, with very few consent holders objecting to the introduction of metering (Canterbury
Regional Council, 2010), the costs in terms of both time and money for all parties involved has meant
that ECan has not pursued similar processes in any of the other catchments suffering from overallocation. The introduction of the Regulations was therefore welcomed by ECan as providing a new
mechanism under which metering could be implemented region-wide.
2.3 The development of the Regulations
A lack of information on water use was identified as an issue of significance not just in Canterbury,
but for the whole of the country. The Ministry for the Environment (MfE) considers knowing when
and where freshwater resources are used as critical for ensuring that these resources are managed
and allocated amongst competing water users effectively and efficiently (MfE, 2013c). Yet in 2006,
MfE estimated that only a third of all allocated water across New Zealand was actively measured
(MfE, 2013c). This prompted the development of the Regulations, to ensure that a nationally
consistent approach to water measurement was established.
The need for the Regulations was first raised by the last Labour Party led government in power
between 1999 and 2008. During this period, the government developed the “Sustainable Water
Programme of Action” in response to concerns about the way that freshwater resources were
managed (MfE, 2009). By 2006 the government had identified three key instruments considered
necessary for improving freshwater management including: a National Policy Statement for
10
Freshwater Management, a National Environmental Standard on Ecological Flows and Water Levels,
and a National Environmental Standard for Measurement of Water Takes (MfE, 2009). However, the
change of government that came with the 2008 general election disrupted the development of these
proposals into policy.
With the change to a National Party led government in 2008, the “Sustainable Water Programme of
Action” morphed into the “Fresh Start for Fresh Water”, with the three existing instruments
(described above) providing the basis on which the new strategy was built (MfE, 2011). Within the
new framework, the planned policy for the measurement and reporting of water takes was changed
in form from a National Environmental Standard to a set of regulations under the RMA, which were
instigated relatively quickly after the change of government. In addition to building on the prior work
already completed under Labour, the Fresh Start for Fresh Water also saw the development of other
initiatives including the Irrigation Acceleration Fund, the Fresh Start for Fresh Water clean-up fund,
and the instigation of the Land and Water Forum (LaWF), a stakeholder group tasked with
undertaking a collaborative and consensus-based approach to current issues in freshwater
management in New Zealand (MfE, 2011).
The Regulations were therefore implemented at a time when freshwater management was subject
to significant reforms, creating a wider context of flux. Since the introduction of the Regulations in
2010, the reforming process has continued with the release of the proposals for a National
Environmental Standard on Ecological Flows and Water levels, amendments to the RMA, and
amendments to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management to establish ‘bottom
lines’ with the development of a National Objectives Framework. In this context, it is important to
examine how the Regulations are being implemented to provide insight for future policy
development and implementation.
2.4 Water measurement in New Zealand prior to the Regulations
Water measurement prior to the introduction of the Regulations was focused in specific regions,
including the Bay of Plenty, Auckland, Manawatu and Wellington. These regions are characterised by
freshwater resources of limited size that are easily stressed (P. Peters, Horizons Regional Council,
pers. comm., 13 May 2013; S. Thawley, Greater Wellington Regional Council, pers. comm., 2 May
2013). The competition for the limited resources in these regions created a pressing need for water
measurement. For example, in 2003-2004 Horizons Regional Council implemented a programme of
supplying and installing telemetry equipment to water users in priority catchments (where
competition was greatest), if the users installed their own water measurement device. The telemetry
system feeds real-time data about the water use to an online platform (called WaterMatters) where
it can be monitored by both council and the water users, enabling water abstraction to be staggered
11
both spatially and temporally within a catchment to prevent over-abstraction. Although this
programme was initially voluntary, many water users in the priority catchments joined as they could
see the benefit in having data on water use, particularly for ensuring compliance with permit
conditions (P. Peters, Horizons Regional Council, pers. comm., 13 May 2013).
In these regions, water permits are also typically issued for volumes at the lower end of the range
(often below the five litres/second threshold of the Regulations) and for relatively short time frames
(e.g. five to ten years) as a result of the constraints on freshwater resources (P. Peters, Horizons
Regional Council, pers. comm., 13 May 2013; S. Thawley, Greater Wellington Regional Council, pers.
comm., 2 May 2013). Permits are also largely issued to discrete individuals, with no large water
distribution or irrigation schemes (N. Kumar, Auckland Council, pers. comm., 3 May 2013). The
characteristics of the water permits issued in these regions have enabled water measurement to be
implemented through the addition of specific conditions within renewed water permits. For example
in both Wellington and Auckland regions, water measurement was introduced as a standard water
permit condition in the early 2000s as a result of both competition for freshwater resources and the
discussion taking place at the national level around the Sustainable Water Programme of Action. Due
to the relatively high rate of review and renewal of permits, water measurement had been largely
implemented in these regions before the release of the Regulations in 2010 (N. Kumar, Auckland
Council, pers. comm., 3 May 2013; S. Thawley, Greater Wellington Regional Council, pers. comm., 2
May 2013).
2.5 International experience in water metering
2.5.1 Experience in Australia
The introduction of the Regulations in New Zealand followed closely behind introduction of similar
regulations in Australia. Paragraphs 87 – 89 of the Intergovernmental Agreement on a National
Water Initiative (NWI) (Council of Australian Governments, 2004), a national strategy for freshwater
management in Australia released in 2004, describes the need for accurate measurement and
reporting of water consumption when:
•
water entitlements are traded,
•
water planning processes identify it as being necessary,
•
conflict exists around water resources, or
•
the community demands it (Council of Australian Governments, 2004 s 87).
12
Following on from this, the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and
Communities developed a National Framework for Non-urban Water Metering Policy in 2009. This
document is similar to the Regulations in that it requires water meters to be verified in situ as
accurate to within a permissible limit of error, stated as ± 5 %. The responsibility for the
implementation of this national policy rests with the state and territorial governments (Department
of Sustainability Environment Water Population and Communities, 2009).
Although the Regulations in New Zealand and the National Framework for Non-urban Water
Metering Policy in Australia have similarities, one of the key differences is the broader water
management context in which they are placed. In Australia, the NWI places emphasis on the need for
effective water markets and trading to help drive efficient water use (Council of Australian
Governments, 2004), leading to the establishment of a National Water Market as part of water
reforms implemented by the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) (Council of Australian
Governments, 2012). Freshwater, as a result, is largely treated as a commodity and accurate
measurement of water abstraction is therefore necessary for this market to operate in a fair and
transparent manner. Currently in New Zealand the trade of water permits is still only on a small scale
(Lange, Wood, & Winstanely, n.d.) though there has been much discussion around the potential
benefits of introducing more comprehensive water trading, most recently in the reports released by
the LaWF (Land and Water Forum, 2012). In addition to the LaWF (2012), others including Lange et al
(n.d.), Counsell and Evans (2005), and Gunningham (2011a) consider water trading as a potential
mechanism to drive increased water use efficiency and to ensure that water is used in highest value
uses. The introduction of the Regulations would appear to remove one of the barriers that currently
prevent such a trading system being developed in New Zealand on a large scale, by providing
accurate information as to where and when allocated water is used, as well as identifying where it
remains unused. However, under the Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan (successor to the
Canterbury Natural Resources Regional Plan) the transfer of water permits will become a restricted
discretionary activity and up to 50% of the allocated volume must be surrendered for a transfer to
take place (Canterbury Regional Council, 2012). While one barrier to trade may have been removed,
the restrictions contained within the Regional Plan could discourage trade and transfer of water
permits in Canterbury in the future.
In Australia another key driver for the water reforms of the NWI was the relative scarcity of
freshwater resources (Collett, 2010), and the desire to improve water use efficiencies in catchments
characterised by over allocation of the available resource (Council of Australian Governments, 2004,
s 23). While New Zealand, by comparison has an abundance of freshwater resources, there are still
catchments where over-allocation is a significant and increasing issue (Lennox et al., 2011), including
the RSGAZ in Canterbury where this research is focused.
13
A further feature of the Australian NWI was the provision of funding for projects that would improve
water use efficiencies, in order to free up water to be set aside for environmental water flows
(Collett, 2010; Moore, 2012). This led to the establishment of a number of regional projects,
characterised by the installation of technologies that allowed greater accuracy in water
measurement and more automation and control over how and when water is used. One such project
is the Total Channel Control™ (TCC) system implemented in northern Victoria, a telemetry based
system for the management of water in gravity fed irrigation systems where manually operated
control structures and Dethridge wheels (supply outlets) were replaced with automated FlumeGate™
technology (Collett, 2010; Cowan, Murdoch, Linehan, & Kaine, 2006). This occurred alongside
improvements to the centralised system used by water users to request access to water for
irrigation.
Although the irrigators in the scheme already had water measurement devices in place (the existing
Dethridge wheels provided a crude estimate of water flow), the move to the highly automated and
accurate TCC system still presented challenges for both the water users and the authorities, and
unintended but significant consequences arose as a result (Collett, 2010). For example, on examining
the human dimensions of the technology (TCC) use and management, Collett (2010) has identified
that the negotiation between the water users and the water managers was the critical process for
determining the outcome of the implementation of the TCC at the farm scale. He has also identified
that a focus of the negotiation on the specifics of the TCC technology (i.e. improved efficiencies
through automation) created issues at later stages of the implementation, when it became apparent
that these efficiencies could not be proved as an original baseline of water use and water losses had
not been negotiated. This led to the original objective of improving water use efficiencies in order to
free up water to meet environmental flow limits, to become lost amid an unexpected level of
uncertainty, particularly around water losses. The technology, although accurately measuring the
water used for irrigation, could not account for what was not there: the large volume of water lost
from the system, through often unknown routes (Collett, 2010). Conflict between the water users
and the water managers arose as a result, especially when the water managers began to investigate
“sneaky stuff” (Collett, 2010, p. 245) carried out by water users, despite these illegal activities being
relatively uncommon and contributing very little to the overall water loss issue. This example
suggests that an increase in the accuracy of data and the increased scrutiny of the irrigators’
behaviour that this enabled, led to an escalation in disputes in the negotiations between irrigators
and the authority.
Unlike the Australian experience, where systems such as the TCC can be seen as a result of
improvement or ‘toughening’ of existing water measurement standards, measurement of water use
in New Zealand prior to the Regulations has been rare (MfE, 2013c), particularly in Canterbury
14
(Gunningham, 2011b). The implementation of the Regulations has therefore introduced monitoring
into a largely unmonitored area. Furthermore, it is introducing not just monitoring, but accurate
measurement as the Regulations state a minimum accuracy (reg 6(6)(a)) and a further requirement
that in situ verification of this accuracy must be carried out (reg 7), enabling a high level of scrutiny to
occur where there has previously been very little.
The implementation of the TCC technology was a move from an established, low-tech system where
each irrigator had adapted to their unique circumstances a simple technology (manually operated
Dethridge wheels) to deliver an allocated volume of water, to a high tech, automated system of
improved accuracy (Collett, 2010). To provide the accuracy needed to achieve the goal of improved
water use efficiencies, the new TCC technology was necessarily highly standardised, with limited
capacity for adaptation by individual irrigators. This rigidity of the new standardised technology
created a shift and re-ordering of both the social and natural systems. The limited capacity for
irrigators to alter the technology meant that winners and losers were created through its
introduction. Winners emerged as those whose irrigation and farming circumstances fell within the
norm to which the technology applied and were therefore able to gain the full benefits offered by it.
Whereas those whose irrigation system was not suited to the new technology became losers, either
through the failure of the promised benefits to materialise, or in some cases, the failure of the new
system to perform as well as the old system (Collett, 2010).
The TCC technology introduced in northern Victoria, is a highly standardised method of measuring
the water distributed amongst competing farmers. Collett (2010) found that the inflexibility of the
technology meant that the promised benefits failed to materialise for many of the farmers, with
some made significantly worse off. The conflict that arose due to this, was further exacerbated by
the failure to negotiate a mutually acceptable baseline to account for water losses and the increase
in surveillance of farmers by the water managers. Despite the new technology being highly accurate
and standardised, the goal of freeing up water for the environment through improved water use
efficiencies essentially became lost in the conflict surrounding the remaining uncertainties, in
particular the quantity of ‘lost’ water.
2.6 Summary
Much work has been done on studying water management worldwide as well as in New Zealand,
reflecting the importance of freshwater resources to society (Lennox et al., 2011). This is particularly
the case for Canterbury where the region’s freshwater resources have become under increasing
pressure due to a growth in the number of competing users. As demand for water in Canterbury has
continued to increase with the expansion of intensive agriculture, the management of freshwater
resources has become highly contested (Gunningham, 2008, 2011b; Jenkins, 2007; Memon et al.,
15
2010; PCE, 2013; Weber et al., 2011). In light of this conflict, it is perhaps unsurprising that the
Regulations and the measurement of the water that they introduce, has been welcomed as a
necessary process for driving change to improve how freshwater resources are managed.
The case study of the introduction of the TCC technology in Victoria, Australia has demonstrated how
the desired improvements in water use efficiency through the introduction of the highly accurate
and automated TCC technology could not be proved sufficiently because no base level for losses had
been agreed upon. The seemingly accurate and indisputable number representing water that was
used for irrigation by the TCC technology, was therefore subject to dispute because of its inability to
quantify or account for the water that wasn’t there, that lost through leakage and evaporation
(Collett, 2010). The intended consequence of the introduction of the highly standardised TCC
technology (improving water use efficiencies) became lost amid the unintended consequence of
increased conflict between water users and water managers that occurred as a result. It is feasible to
expect that similar issues may arise with the introduction of water measurement in Canterbury as
required by the Regulations.
Memon et al. (2010, p. 36) states that “there is a need for improved social understanding of
catchment governance focused on context, perceptions and interrelationships amongst and between
water user groups, communities, regulators and other stakeholders, and the environments, from
place-based, multi-scalar perspectives” in New Zealand. In examining the implementation of the
Regulations in detail, this study intends to contribute to meeting this need by exploring the role that
standards play in the re-configuration of these relationships.
16
Chapter 3
Theoretical Framework
In this section the theoretical framework which has been applied in conducting this case study is
introduced.
As previously described, freshwater management in Canterbury, is characterised by conflict amongst
competing users (Gunningham, 2008, 2011a; Jenkins, 2007). Improving the science through better
monitoring, of which the Regulations are a part, is considered by many to be the best way to reduce
the contention and improve the management of these freshwater resources. However, as Weber et
al. (2011) argue, focussing exclusively on improving the science is unlikely to resolve the existing
conflict as it will do nothing to address the low levels in trust between the actors. This chapter begins
by expanding on this idea with an introduction to the literature on quantification and the use of
numbers in public policy. This is followed by an overview of co-production which has been used as a
conceptual framework in this study. The chapter is concluded with a description of the common
characteristics of standards.
The theory of co-production embodies the idea that “the social and the natural are seen to
intertwine in ways that make their separation – either in thought or practice – impossible” (Castree,
2001, p. 3). Therefore natural and social orders can be thought of as being produced simultaneously,
acting either towards stability or change. Standardisation through the use of standards and
regulations is a practice of governance used to order both society and our understanding of natural
systems. They do this by helping to convert “the messy realities of people’s personal attributes and
behaviours into the objective, traceable language of numbers” (Jasanoff, 2004b, p. 27). Thus, closer
examination of the use of standards through the co-production lens should help to clarify how the
process of standardisation reconfigures not only the social order, but also the order of nature.
3.1 Quantification and the use of numbers
Knowing how much water is being consumed is considered essential for effectively managing the
fresh water resources of the Canterbury region (Gunningham, 2008; Weber et al., 2011). However,
with over 18,000 water takes across the region, it is far from feasible for each one to be measured
continuously by a person. As Latour (1992) describes in his analysis of a door groom (automatic door
closing mechanism), even if you could find the necessary number of people to perform the
measuring function, people are erratic in their behaviour and there would be no guarantee that all of
the measurements would be taken or be of the same quality. When faced with this issue, it is
necessary “either to discipline the people or to substitute for the unreliable humans a delegated
17
nonhuman character whose only function” is to perform the required task (Latour, 1992, p. 231). The
Regulations aim to do just this by bypassing the need for people to measure water use and relying on
the technology of flow meters and data loggers to perform the function instead. This also serves an
additional purpose in keeping the measurements objective, as the technology is assumed to be free
of the values that influence the behaviour of people (Latour, 1992).
The use of technology in this way is common place throughout society, although Wynne (1988) notes
that “a formal public image of technology as mechanical, rule-following behaviour belies a far less
clearly rule-bound and determined world of real technological practices” (p. 148). Although
technology might be deemed to be value free, it is people that implement and ultimately use it to
meet their needs. In adapting a relatively rigid technology to the variety of contexts in which it must
operate, a balance must be struck between enabling it to meet the needs of a specific context and
the ability to be used across a broad range of differing contexts (universality). The Regulations, for
instance, must be broad enough to encompass the majority of different environments that exist
across New Zealand. But in each location, there may exist specific conditions to which the technology
must be adapted in order to fulfil its function in accordance with the requirements of the
Regulations. Technology therefore only appears to rigidly follow rules, whereas in reality:
The operating rules of technologies are an ad hoc brew of informal modes
accommodating imprecise general principles to particular circumstances of
implementation. These practical rules are more complex, ambiguous and
very different from the neat, rule-bound image of technology projected in
public (Wynne, 1988, p. 149).
However, despite the best efforts to produce an objective measure of water abstraction through the
use of non-human agents (meters and data loggers), the very act of quantification and assigning a
number to something alters the way that we view it (Porter, 1996). Stone (1997) describes how the
use of numbers to define and describe society is pervasive in contemporary culture and notes that
“we do not measure things except when we want to change them or change our behaviour in
response to them” (p. 167). Measurement is a common tool used to define a policy problem and
numbers are typically invoked in order to give legitimacy to an opinion or policy. This legitimacy is
valuable as whenever there is agitation for change, conflict is bound to arise between those who
value the status quo and those who desire change, or over which direction or form any change
should take. The legitimacy of numbers is therefore dependent on the existence of adequately
uniform methods for quantification (Porter, 1996).
Yet although “numbers offer the promise of conflict resolution through arithmetic” (Stone, 1997, p.
174), they remain malleable and open to manipulation to suit different ends, even when they have
been obtained via standardised quantification processes. All counting requires the use of judgement
18
and discretion as the act of quantifying relies on the creation of boundaries and criteria to determine
what is to be included, and what is to be left out (Stone, 1997). As with technology, numbers
therefore give a powerful impression of precision, accuracy and objectivity, but in reality, they can be
simultaneously weak and open to dispute (Porter, 1996; Stone, 1997). For example, Stone (1997)
describes how unemployment figures can be altered to suit political motives by manipulating the
categories that are included in the count: excluding those who are not actively seeking work reduces
the number of unemployed which could be used to indicate no significant problem exists, whereas
including these people in the count may be useful for justifying that a problem does exist.
This ambiguity of numbers arises especially when measuring people and social phenomena, “because
people, unlike rocks, respond to being measured” (Stone, 1997, p. 177). This reactivity exists
amongst organisations as much as with individuals and is a result of human nature: people will
always want their measurements to fit within the desirable norms and the perceived expectations of
others (Stone, 1997). While reactivity is not a deliberate attempt to maliciously manipulate
measurements, it is unavoidable and it is also in conflict with the principles of scientific practice and
the ideals of objectivity under which most measurement is assumed to occur. In addition to
reactivity, measurement also increases awareness of whatever it is that is being measured, and as
the measurements are typically used to inform the direction of change, the measurers have a degree
of power over those who are measured (Stone, 1997). This can motivate people to cheat or deceive
the measurers in an attempt to get the outcome they desire. Minimising the risk of deception
typically involves the use of standardised measurement methods, supported by a framework of
scrutiny and authority:
Where there is incentive to deceive, the job of keeping the numbers honest
will depend on ever more detailed regulations, and of spies and auditors
who are in a position to examine things in relatively full detail. This means
opening black boxes, thus compromising those key virtues of detachment
and economy that made the numbers valuable in the first place (Porter,
1996, p. 50).
Measurement and the numbers it produces have become a dominant means of describing the world,
particularly in the domain of public policy, where numbers offer legitimacy to decisions. However,
although the technologies used in measurement and the numbers produced as a result are perceived
to be value free and objective, in reality, they always reflect the values of those doing the measuring
and those being measured. They are therefore always open to interpretation and manipulation:
“numbers are always descriptions of the world, and as descriptions, they are no more real than the
visions of poems or paintings” (Stone, 1997, p. 187).
As Stone (1997) reflects, it is assumed that numbers will provide proof that a connection exists
between a human action and a problem, in this case the abstraction of water for irrigation in
19
Canterbury is having detrimental environmental effects, or not. Those studying the use of
technologies and measurement in society consider that numbers are frequently not as objective and
indisputable as they at first appear, but are open to interpretation and manipulation by those
seeking to use them (Latour, 1992; Porter, 1996; Stone, 1997; Wynne, 1988). This is despite efforts
such as the use of standardised quantification practices, intended to increase their legitimacy.
3.2 The co-production conceptual framework
Co-production is a theoretical framework that has been developed from the field of science and
technology studies (S&TS) to help overcome some of the perceived shortcomings of other disciplines
in describing and interpreting complex emerging and controversial phenomena. In States of
Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and Social Order, Jasanoff (2004c) argues that “we gain
explanatory power by thinking of natural and social orders as being produced together” (p. 2). In
other words, science, society, culture and politics simultaneously embody and influence each other
(Swedlow, 2011). Within the conceptual framework of co-production, science is “understood as
neither a simple reflection of the truth about nature nor an epiphenomenon of social and political
interests” (Jasanoff, 2004a, p. 3). Rather, scientific knowledge and technology are products of the
interconnectedness of nature and society, with each enacting the reality of the other. The resulting
orderings of nature and society act to orient each other towards either stability or change (Jasanoff,
2004b). As such, within the co-production framework the apparent separation of facts (nature) from
values (culture) is something to be scrutinised rather than something to be accepted as a true
representation of the world (Duncan, 2013).
Within the co-production framework, Jasanoff and many of the contributors to her book emphasise
the importance of politics, specifically through understanding how “knowledge-making is
incorporated into practices of state-making, or of governance more broadly” (Jasanoff, 2004a, p. 3)
and vice versa. In other words, co-production can be useful for identifying not only how knowledge
and its production influence the distribution of power within science, and socio-political orders, but
also how the practices of governance influence the creation and use of knowledge. Co-production
therefore sits well within the focus areas of S&TS, namely, the emergence of new phenomena,
conflict resolution, the standardisation of knowledge and technology, and, the enculturation of
science (Jasanoff, 2004a). Jasanoff states that within S&TS, co-production occurs along four distinct
pathways: making identities, making institutions, making discourses, and making representations
(Jasanoff, 2004a). She goes on to argue that these four pathways can help to link S&TS work with
other disciplines in social analysis (Jasanoff, 2004a).
However, Jasanoff (2004a) does not consider co-production to be a comprehensive theoretical
framework but rather an “idiom” that can provide greater interpretative power for understanding
20
complex phenomena. She argues that it can “be seen as a critique of the realist ideology that
persistently separates the domains of nature, facts, objects, reason and policy from those of culture,
values, subjectivity, emotion and politics” (Jasanoff, 2004a, p. 3). The lack of a defined co-production
theory has been identified as a limitation to the explanatory and, in particular, the predictive power,
of co-production in application (Swedlow, 2011). It also creates difficulty in describing the processes
attributed to co-production as they are open to interpretation by the individual researcher (Kemp &
Rotmans, 2009). However, despite these limitations, co-production is considered useful for providing
a richness of description when investigating how science and socio-political orders are arranged and
interwoven together (Jasanoff, 2004a). Its aim “is not to provide deterministic causal explanations of
the ways in which science and technology influence society, or vice versa … rather, it is to make
available resources for thinking systematically about the processes of sense-making through which
human beings come to grips with worlds in which science and technology have become permanent
fixtures” (Jasanoff, 2004b, p. 38).
3.2.1 The application of co-production
To date, there is much diversity in the topics that co-production has been applied to, though Jasanoff
argues that the topics can be loosely divided into two categories: the constitutive, and the
interactional (Jasanoff, 2004a). The constitutive is that which considers the emergence of new sociotechnical formations, and the interactional is that which deals with conflicts in existing formations. As
a broad discipline that is frequently subject to the emergence of socio-technical formations and
characterised by complex or messy problems that encourage conflict, the development of
environmental policy is an area that has been scrutinised frequently through the co-production lens
(Kemp & Rotmans, 2009; Miller, 2004; Storey, 2004; Swedlow, 2011; Thompson, 2004; W. Tuinstra,
2008; W. Tuinstra, Hordijk, & Kroeze, 2006; Waterton & Wynne, 2004).
3.2.2 Co-production of natural and social order
As previously stated, Jasanoff (2004a) considers that the co-production of natural and social orders
occurs along four distinct pathways: the making of identities, institutions, discourses and
representations. Through examining these pathways, it is possible to see how social and natural
orders have been (or have failed to be) stabilised by what we know and how we know it. However, it
is important to note that natural and social orders are not created anew through co-production, but
are instead built upon and embed the negotiated outcomes from historical processes of conflict and
stabilisation (Reardon, 2001). Thus, the orders of nature and society are always constructed on the
basis of past identities, institutions, discourses and representations. In her case study of the Human
Genome Diversity Project (HGDP), Reardon (2001) describes how the failure of the project to
proceed beyond the planning phase was due to the organisers’ failure to adequately address past
21
debate around the nature of human differences from either a science (biological/genetic) or societal
(race/population) basis. She argues that this prevented new configurations of natural and social
order from being developed, as those involved had no past consensus from which to work from.
Making identities
Jasanoff (2004b) describes the process of redefining identities as a common tool used by people to
restore a sense of order out of a world in disarray. Co-production can be used to describe how power
or meaning comes to be ascribed to an identity. The identity of the expert is one that has been
subject to much scrutiny in the past, with the identity often formed around knowledge and
knowledge production practices of the experts in question (Carolan, 2006; Dear, 2004; Maiello,
Viegas, Frey, & D. Ribeiro, 2013). Co-production thus helps us to understand how the development of
knowledge and our understanding of nature, gives power and meaning to social and political
identities, such as scientists and experts (Swedlow, 2011).
However, identities can be associated with groups as well as individuals, and these identities are
equally open to being challenged and redefined. This can be seen in the case described by Thompson
(2004), where a single identity for all African elephants was found to be insufficient for a species that
inhabits a large geographical area where a diverse range of cultural attitudes towards the species
existed. Enabling effective management of the species required redefinition of a single African
identity to many regional identities. These new identities, as described by Thompson (2004), are
neither exclusively cultural, nor natural, but both.
Making institutions
Institutions represent stable facilitators of knowledge and power, often looked upon to validate
sources of new knowledge, serving “as sites for the testing and reaffirmation of political culture”
(Jasanoff, 2004b, p. 40). They are therefore often examined through the co-production lens, either
tracking how an existing institution has evolved over time (Storey, 2004; Swedlow, 2011; Thompson,
2004), or examining the emergence or formation of a new institution (Miller, 2004; Waterton &
Wynne, 2004). As examples of interactional co-production, Thompson (2004) and Swedlow (2011)
describe how the change in attitudes towards specific endangered species of animals, African
elephants and North American spotted owls respectively, over time has helped to drive changes in
the institutions charged with managing these animals.
In both of these cases, the reordering of nature – old-growth forest from biological desert to ecosystem critical to the survival of an endangered species, and African elephants from universally
endangered and protected to the management of regional populations in accordance with
sustainable population levels – has occurred simultaneously with reordering of the existing social
institutions in charge of the management of the animals. Swedlow (2011) and Thompson (2004) have
22
described interactional co-production through their examination of how the existing institutions, the
U.S. Forest Service and CITES respectively, have evolved. By comparison, constitutive co-production
is that which occurs during the formation and identity-building of new institutions. Miller (2004) and
Waterton and Wynne (2004) have used co-production in this way to examine the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the European Environmental Agency (EEA) respectively, paying
particular attention to how power is distributed between nation states, and these new political
institutions that span multiple nation state boundaries. In these studies, the co-production
framework has been used to demonstrate how new institutions must be accompanied by new
knowledges in order to gain power and advantage over existing institutions.
Making discourses
New language or modification of existing language can help to stabilise new social and natural orders
(Jasanoff, 2004b). This need for new discourses is described by Miller (2004) and Waterton and
Wynne (2004) as being particularly necessary for establishing the identities and legitimacy of newly
formed institutions. In the case of the IPCC, the reframing of ‘climate’ from an aggregation of local
weather events over the long term to that of a global system at risk from human activity was crucial
for the development of the IPCC as a global institution, spanning nation states (Miller, 2004). In her
evaluation of the Human Genome Diversity Project, Reardon (2001) outlines how the failure of the
project to move beyond the planning stage was in part due to the inability of those involved to
disengage themselves from “prior debates, and the emotionally and politically charged scientific and
social discourses of population, race, ethnicity and colonization” (p. 380).
Making representations
Representations, or the multiple ways of knowing has long been an area of focus for S&TS, but
Jasanoff argues that the co-production framework can be useful to further explore the political
implications of the use of representations (Jasanoff, 2004b). As Stone (1997) and Porter (1996)
describe, numbers are frequently used to represent aspects of the world in modern policy debate
where “statistics are able to describe social reality partly because they help to define it” (Porter,
1996, p. 49). However, quantified representations are not used solely to define society, but are also
used extensively to define the environment and furthermore, this process of definition will always be
conditional on the social system that is doing the quantification. Thus “representations of those
things – in the form of words, concepts, and explanations – are not simply ‘mirrors of nature’. Rather
they are seen as cultural products freighted with numerous biases, assumptions, and prejudices”
(Castree & MacMillan, 2001, p. 209)
Ezrahi (2004) claims that the traditional dominance of the representations put forward by the science
community is losing ground to the alternative representations generated by the mass media. Where
23
science maintains distance from everyday human experience in order to remain objective, the
representations created by the media contain emotion and opinion. He argues that this makes the
media much more accessible to the general public. Therefore the natural and social orderings have
been altered as the media has taken authority from scientists, and the representations of nature as
constructed through the media become those ingrained within the cultural understanding.
Although co-production does not provide a comprehensive theoretical framework to work with, it
does provide interpretative power for studying complex or emerging phenomena. Previous studies
suggest that co-production occurs along four distinct pathways: making identities, making
institutions, making discourses, and making representations. The introduction of the Regulations in
Canterbury represents a significant change for the region with, for example, water abstraction being
quantified, reducing the need to rely on assumptions. As described in the next section, standards are
a ubiquitous part of modern life that are used to create order and structure in the world. They are
also frequently tools of governance that can be exerted on both people, things and the environment.
Using the conceptual framework of co-production to examine the introduction of the Regulations,
therefore enables the research to focus on these four sites to explore the role that the standard has
played in reconfiguring social and natural orders.
3.3 The role of standards
Standards and regulations govern the way in which we understand the world or as Busch (2011, p.
68) describes them: “standards are a means by which we construct objective reality”. Although often
hidden, or so widely accepted that they are not immediately visible, standards pervade all aspects of
objects, humans, and the interactions between them (Bowker & Star, 2000; Busch, 2000, 2011; Star
& Lampland, 2009). In a messy and imperfect world, standards enable us to rely on aspects of the
world behaving in expected and predictable ways (Busch, 2011). In this section, some common
characteristics of standards are described. In examining the Regulations through the lens of coproduction, it is anticipated that it is these characteristics that facilitate standards to act as modes
through which natural and social orders are co-produced.
A note about terminology
In the context of New Zealand policy, the terms ‘standard’ and ‘regulation’ refer to specific
documents in the legislative framework. A statutory regulation, such as the Regulations is a law made
by the Governor-General or Minister of the Crown under the authority of an empowering legislation
that deals with details or administrative matters that are subject to change (Parliamentary Counsel
Office, n.d.). For example the Regulations themselves have been created pursuant to section
360(1)(d) of the RMA. But their status as a separate regulation enables the specific details contained
within them to be amended in future if and when required, without the whole legislative base, in this
24
case the RMA, needing to be amended. Standards are similar to statutory regulations in that they
contain detailed information that is subject to change, but they are drafted primarily by Ministers,
officials and organisations and are considered to be deemed regulations (Parliamentary Counsel
Office, 2012). Deemed regulations such as standards are a legislative tool that accompanies a specific
legislation, rather than being a piece of legislation (Parliamentary Counsel Office, n.d.).
In this chapter the term ‘standard’ is used in a different and much more general sense to that
detailed above. ‘Standard’ is used to describe the endless array of rules that govern and organise the
world as we know it. I therefore consider the Regulations to be a form of standard, a group of rules
that dictate how water users should behave, and that also provide a benchmark against which their
behaviour can be monitored by those in authority.
3.3.2 Types of standard
Busch (2011) describes four types of standard; Olympics, filters, ranks and divisions. An Olympic
standard is one where a single thing or person is identified as the best (or the winner) within a
specific time or space. This type of standard includes competitions, and is characterised by the
presence of many more losers than winners. Filter standards in contrast are used to distinguish those
that meet the standard (or can pass through the metaphorical filter material) from those that do not
(those trapped within the filter). Unlike Olympic standards which seek to identify only the best from
the rest, filter standards are designed to eliminate the unacceptable. To do this, a filter standard
makes use of a test or a series of tests which must be passed in order to prove that the item or
person in question is of an acceptable standard. As implied in the name, ranks are standards that
place people or things in an hierarchical order of many categories, in contrast to the bi-modal filter
standard. Unlike an Olympic standard where only the top position is distinguished, all objects or
persons are assigned a position by a ranking standard. This order may be linked to a reward/penalty
system and as such can be highly contested. Division standards are those where many categories
exist, but there is no common preference or hierarchical ordering for the categories. Table 3.1 below
provides examples of these types of standard.
Table 3.1
Examples of the use of different types of standard for objects and people.
Standard type
Olympic
Filter
Ranks
Division
Example for objects
Car of the year
Toys suitable for young children
Grading of grains
Varieties of apples
Example for people
Athlete holding the world title
Citizens of a nation state
Positions within the military
Religious affiliations
25
The Regulations represent a standard of the filter type. A water measuring device or system either
meets the standard (it passes the through the filter), or it does not, and is retained within the filter. A
filter standard is designed to eliminate the unacceptable in terms of a single or a series of tests. In
the case of the Regulations some such tests include that the water measurement device or system
must a) be verified as meeting the necessary in situ accuracy level (reg 6(a)), b) be suited to the
qualities of the water it is measuring (reg 6(c)), and c) be sealed and tamperproof (reg 6(d)).
3.3.3 Characteristics of standards
Although standards exist and apply to a vast range of processes, objects, people and things, there are
some characteristics that all standards have in common, including power and control, path
dependence, and never existing in isolation.
Power and control
Standards arise out of a need to create order in a frequently messy and imperfect world. As
described by Busch (2011, p. 73), standards allow us to package aspects of the world as “standing
reserve”, or something that can be called upon when needed, safe in the knowledge that it will
perform in a predictable way and conform with expectations (Busch, 2000, 2011; Star & Lampland,
2009). It is this feature that has seen the use of standards increase alongside the rise of globalisation
in commodity markets, where it reduces transaction costs (Busch, 2000, 2010). But in ensuring
quality and predictability, standards embody power and control; a standard is always defined by
someone in an authoritative position and is either met, or not. As outlined by Busch (2000, p. 281)
“the creation of standards disciplines, reorganizes, and transforms not only the thing that is
standardized but all those persons and things that come in contact with it”. He refers to this process
(which is also identified by Porter (1996)) as symmetry (Busch, 2000, 2011). It is this ability of
standards to affect more than just the thing or person that is intended to be standardised that makes
them pivotal to the process of co-production.
This symmetry between people and things can be seen in the Regulations as they are a standard of
measurement intended to introduce a consistent method for quantifying abstracted water. However,
they are also a mandatory set of rules, and failure to comply with the measurement requirements of
the Regulations will lead to a consent holder being punished under the provisions of the RMA. Thus
they simultaneously judge both the measurement of water and the behaviour of the water user as
being acceptable or not. In doing this, they have therefore immediately constructed an identity and
representation regarding what is acceptable and what is not. Hence, Busch (2000) argues that this
symmetry means that “standards are ways of defining a moral economy, of defining what (who) is
good and what is bad, of disciplining those people and things that do not conform to the accepted
26
definitions of good and bad” (p. 274). Thus, standards can be thought of as modes of co-production
of natural and social orders.
There are different degrees of power associated with standards, generally determined by the
sanctions they induce (Busch, 2011). Some, such as the Regulations, have the power of the law
behind them. In such cases, mandatory sanctions are invoked where the standard either prohibits or
requires a specific activity to take place. There are also many standards issued by private
organisations, which do not have any legal basis of their own, but can sometimes be enforceable
through contract or tort law (Busch, 2011). These private standards tend to be advisory, proscribing
(poor work place behaviour for example) or prescribing (a corporate ethics code) specific activities.
Sanctions associated with private standards are often associated with some form of recognition
when the standards are met by the private organisation issuing them, for example through
certification and accreditation schemes. Irrigation New Zealand’s Blue Tick accreditation scheme for
the irrigation industry is an example of a private standard. Although not officially incorporated as a
part of the Regulations, the majority of regional councils rely on the scheme for ensuring that the
standard of industry professionals is of an acceptable standard (Irrigation New Zealand, 2011).
Star and Lampland (2009) argue that the impacts of standards are distributed unevenly across the
sociocultural landscape with people often conforming to an established standard because there are
no better choices available to them (Busch, 2000). This is demonstrated by the introduction of the
TCC technology in northern Victoria, where the highly standardised and automated nature of the
technology meant that farmers were very limited in their ability to adapt it to their specific farm
conditions. As a result, those farms that were not fully within the norm to which the technology was
intended to work became worse off by the introduction of the TCC. Some farmers found that the
areas of their farms that could be irrigated was greatly reduced through the introduction of the
technology, leading to a significant loss of income (Collett, 2010). In the process of accepting a
standard, we amplify the standardised reality while reducing that which does not conform to it.
Standards therefore can be used to both empower and disempower people and things by either
facilitating or constraining actions (Busch, 2011). In adopting the critical perspective offered by the
conceptual framework of co-production, these interactions can be examined more closely to identify
the implications of the implementation of the Regulations.
Path dependence
Once a standard is established it can create path dependence, where the effort to reverse or alter
the standard, and any policies or decisions linked to it, is large or expensive. As Busch (2011, p. 61)
describes “standards create path dependence: they make it costly (in terms of money, skill,
organization, and social networks) to shift to an alternative development path since future actions
27
are contingent on those in the past”. This irreversibility is influenced by factors such as the
infrastructure built to establish or support the standard (Busch, 2011; Star & Lampland, 2009). This
can be demonstrated by the necessity for travellers to carry adaptor plugs to enable them to use
their appliances in other countries. A universal power socket could be developed, but to replace
every existing power socket would be a huge and expensive undertaking (Busch, 2011). Such path
dependence can be further exacerbated due to the ability of standards to have far-reaching effects
on seemingly unrelated objects, particularly in cases where other standards have subsequently been
developed. For example, Lampland and Star (2009, p. 167) describe the origin of the U.S standard
railway gauge of 4 feet 8.5 inches, a seemingly random number, tracing it back through history to the
width needed to accommodate the breadth of two horses in an Imperial Roman war chariot. As the
path dependence of this standard has become increasingly irreversible over time, consequences
have emerged that could never have been foreseen by those fixing this gauge in place as ‘the
standard’ in the 1880s. One such unintended consequence has been to constrain the size of the solid
rocket boosters used to propel NASA’s space shuttles, as they require transportation between the
manufacturer and the launching site by railroad (Lampland & Star, 2009).
A similar path dependence can also be seen in the lack of active water measurement in Canterbury
prior to the implementation of the Regulations. As described in section 2.2.2, in the absence of the
Regulations, water measurement could only be required through specific conditions in water permits
(Gunningham, 2011b). In Canterbury, the historic perception of abundant freshwater resources has
led to the development of large water distribution schemes and large volume water abstractions to
allow irrigated agriculture (Weber et al., 2011). The high costs of developing the infrastructure
associated with this water use have then dictated that water permits be issued for long time frames
of up to 35 years (Gunningham, 2011b). Despite the water resources becoming increasingly stressed,
the slow turnover of permits has acted as a barrier, preventing ECan from addressing this resource
stress by introducing a water measurement requirement during the permit renewal process. This
path dependence has meant that the only alternative process open to ECan prior to the Regulations
was to revoke and reissue each permit in stressed catchments, a time consuming and expensive
process (J. Earl-Goulet, ECan, pers. comm., 11 April 2013).
Nested, layered and interlocking
Standards never exist in isolation, but are layered with other interlocking or interrelated standards,
tests and categories (Busch, 2011; Star & Lampland, 2009). These include pre-existing standards that
are commensurable with the new one, and cases where meeting the requirements of one standard is
necessary to ensure another standard can be applied successfully. As with all technologies, a myriad
of standards already exists to define the specifications for manufacture, installation and maintenance
of water measurement devices (Bowker & Star, 2000; Busch, 2011). These standards can be drawn
28
upon to meet the filter tests as described above, for example the manufacturers of water
measurement devices always provide a set of guidelines to accompany their products outlining the
standard conditions under which the device can be expected to perform optimally (Myles et al.,
2011). Such standards are used to help ensure the manufacturer’s integrity is not compromised by
the poor performance of their product due to poor product choice or installation technique. Preexisting standards such as these industry guidelines are commensurable to the Regulations in that
they can be used to help meet the filtering tests, ensuring the quality and accuracy of the data
produced. Similarly, while the TCC technology used in Australia was primarily intended to measure
and manage the distribution of water from a central scheme to individual farmers, it was also
inextricably linked to both the water trading market and the need to improve water use efficiency in
order to find the necessary environmental base flow (Collett, 2010). The standardised TCC
technology was therefore both nested within the standards governing the water trading market, and
linked to the policy dictating the need for environmental base flows.
Data format is another example of where an additional standard is required to support an original. In
Sorting things out: classification and its consequences, Bowker and Star (2000) use the example of
standard death certificates (and the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) document which
provides standardised illnesses and is used to inform the filling out of death certificates) to describe
how standardised methods around data capture, although necessary, will always create limitations
as to how that data can be used in the future. The same example also outlines how different end
users of data often have very different needs in what data is captured; to statisticians deaths by rare
diseases are often ignored as unimportant outliers, whereas to a public health official, those rare
cases may be of high importance for predicting the emergence of new diseases or potential cause of
epidemics (Busch, 2011). Further, for the doctor charged with capturing the data, it may be
considered as needless paperwork, distracting them from providing assistance to the patients still in
need of care (Bowker & Star, 2000). Similarly with the TCC project in Victoria, the farmers want the
data largely for confirming that they are receiving the water that they have paid for. Whereas for the
water managers, the data is more valuable in aggregate to manage the system as a whole. This
example demonstrates how a single standard can co-produce divergent identities and discourses
through the use of the data to meet the individual needs of the different actors.
3.3.4 Standards and the Regulations
The need for standards often arises out of an environment of controversy and disagreement, through
an iterative process characterised by alternating conflict and compromise (Busch, 2011). Freshwater
management in New Zealand has long been an area defined by controversy as multiple users
compete for a limited water resource (Lennox et al., 2011; Weber et al., 2011). This is reflected in the
29
on-going reforms around environmental and freshwater management, in the midst of which the
Regulations have been developed and implemented (MfE, 2009, 2011, 2013a). The Regulations seek
to reduce this conflict by providing a source of information and data to assist with future freshwater
management decisions (MfE, 2013c). They also contribute to the existing water governance
framework by introducing structure and order to the activity of water abstraction by providing rules
of engagement for water users as well as the regulatory authority (Gunningham, 2011a). In effect,
these rules are serving to shape the relationship between the water user and regional council as the
authority in charge of water management (Gunningham, 2011a). This research examines this
relationship and the role that the Regulations have played in reconfiguring it.
3.4 Summary
Standards are a tool of governance that is used to create order and structure in a messy and
imperfect world and in doing this, they also co-produce nature and culture. Typically applying to
people and things, they have the ability to both empower and disempower different elements as
they construct reality. Some of the features of standards that enable this power include the extent
that standards are always nested within and amongst others and the resulting path dependence.
Furthermore, the Regulations are a standard of quantification and thus they embody assumptions
about how the numbers they produce will construct objective and legitimate representations of
reality.
A co-production analytical framework considers that although the social and natural systems are
represented as separate from each other, they are both intrinsically intertwined with each helping to
influence the construction of the other. Therefore, within the framework of co-production, any
ordering that takes place within the social system of people and things as a result of the use of
standards, will be accompanied by an ordering of nature as well. Jasanoff (2004c) argues that by
considering the two (social and nature) as being produced together we gain explanatory power for
examining controversial phenomena, such as freshwater management in Canterbury.
The experience of introducing the highly standardised TCC technology for measuring water in
northern Victoria provides some suggestion as to how the introduction of water measurement in
New Zealand through the Regulations will reconfigure natural and social orders. In the Australian
case, not only were the water users re-ordered by the emergence of winners and losers, but the
development of conflict and distrust between the water users and the authority over the issue of
accounting for water losses further altered the existing social order (Collett, 2010). A previous
relationship based on trust was altered to one where the authority began to utilise its institutional
power over the water users, with an identity created for the water users as untrustworthy people
trying to scam the system for their benefit. The conflict that led to this re-ordering of the social
30
system also had consequences for the ordering of nature, demonstrating how they can be
considered to be co-produced. The preoccupation of the social actors in addressing the issue of ‘lost’
or unaccounted water caused a shift in the natural order to occur. The original goal of the TCC
project to improve water use efficiencies to enable water to be set aside to meet environmental flow
limits became lost amid the conflict. ‘Lost’ water therefore began to take precedence over
‘environmental’ water in the discourse of water management. This new order around the discourse
of water arose after the expected benefits to the farmers and the environment of the TCC project
failed to materialise (Collett, 2010; Cowan et al., 2006)
As stated, the co-production literature describes four pathways along which the production of
natural and social orders are likely to occur: making identities, making institutions, making
discourses, and making representations. Through examining these modes of co-production, this
theoretical framework can assist in identifying apparent demarcations between nature and culture
that created by the use of standards, whilst allowing further examination of the intermingling that
the demarcations are obscuring. Thus, through investigating the implementation of the Regulations
in the RSGAZ in terms of these four pathways, this study will answer the research question. The next
chapter revisits the research question, and outlines the methodology used in conducting this
research.
31
Chapter 4
Research Aim, Questions and Methodology
This chapter provides a description of how this research was conducted. It also details the rationale
behind the selection of specific procedures and techniques that have been utilised over the course of
the research.
4.1 Research aim and guiding questions
As stated in Chapter 1, the aim of this research is to evaluate the potential implications of the
introduction of the Regulations for freshwater resources in Canterbury in the future and to
understand how they might influence the long term management of these resources in Canterbury.
To achieve this aim, the research objectives are to:
a) Examine how the regulations have disrupted and reconfigured established social norms and
understandings of the environment, and thus, their role in creating instability and reordering of social and natural systems;
b) Identifying the consequences (both intended and unintended) of the Regulations and the
challenges in their implementation.
In order to meet the objectives of this research, the following research question has been used as a
guide:
•
What role have the Regulations played in reconfiguring previously taken for granted
relationships that underpin freshwater management in Canterbury?
4.2 Research Methodology
In order to evaluate how the introduction of the Regulations have affected key stakeholders and to
draw conclusions about the role of standards in the reordering of social and natural systems, a
research methodology that could provide rich descriptive data about the experiences and
perceptions of those involved was required. Furthermore, despite the Regulations coming into force
in 2010, the staged nature of the implementation has meant that at the time that the research was
conducted, the Regulations were only partially implemented, though the first stage accounts for over
90% of the total volume of allocated water in Canterbury (Tricker, Young, Ettema, & Earl-Goulet,
2012). It was therefore necessary to use a research methodology that would also allow for the
implementation of the Regulations to be studied at this intermediate stage.
32
Case study research is one of the means of inquiry used in the social sciences and is considered to be
best suited to studying contemporary events embedded within real life contexts (Flyvbjerg, 2006;
Thomas, 2011; Yin, 2009). Simons (2009b) describes the case study as a research method that allows
“in-depth exploration from multiple perspectives of the complexity and uniqueness of a particular
project, policy, institution, program, or system in a ‘real life’ context” (p. 21). Furthermore, Scholz et
al. (2006) consider the case study research approach as particularly useful in the consideration of
“complex problems concerning the interaction of human and environment systems” (p.228).
Yin (2009) describes how the case study method is best used for answering ‘how’ or ‘why’ questions
of an explanatory nature. Although it could be argued that a survey is best suited for answering a
question such as ‘what have been the challenges for the implementation of the Regulations?’, the
use of a case study and qualitative data collection methods were considered necessary to investigate
the theoretical basis of the research to provide insight into how the Regulations have created new, or
altered existing ordering within both natural and social systems linked to the management of
freshwater. A survey would constrain responses to what the researcher asks and therefore would be
unable to reveal any complexity in responses, by preventing two-way dialogue for example. Based on
the research aims and questions, and the constraints stated above, a case study research
methodology was chosen as the most suitable methodology for conducting this research.
4.2.1 Defining and justifying the case
The case for this research is defined as the implementation of the Resource Management
(Measurement and Reporting of Water Takes) Regulations 2010 (the Regulations) in the agricultural
sector located within the bounds of the Rakaia-Selwyn groundwater allocation zone (RSGAZ),
Canterbury. The temporal boundary for the case was limited to the date at which the Regulations
came into force (August 2010) through to the end of the data collection period (October 2013).
Within this case, the Regulations have been used as an example of the introduction of a standard
into an area which was previously, largely free from formal regulatory rules in relation to monitoring
of water abstraction. Although the Regulations apply to all water abstractions, the case focuses solely
on the agricultural sector. Other large water users such as industrial users and domestic water
supplies have been excluded from the case as the total volume of water used by these other users is
small (14%) in comparison to that used within the agricultural sector (86%) in Canterbury
(Environment Canterbury, 2007). Despite being the primary consumer of water in Canterbury, the
agricultural sector has historically also been subject to very little measurement of water usage
(Gunningham, 2011b). The socio-economic consequences of the introduction of the Regulations
were therefore expected to be greatest for the agricultural sector.
33
Yin (2009) describes three main situations where a single case study, such as this, is appropriate.
These are where the case represents a critical case, an extreme or unique case, or where it is a
representative or typical case. Initially the Selwyn territorial authority district was selected as the
geographical boundary for the case, in part because it is where the researcher is based, and was
therefore more readily accessible than other parts of Canterbury. This district was also considered to
be representative of the central Canterbury region, consisting of mountainous land to the west, with
intensive agriculture concentrated on the plains to the east. However, as the research progressed, it
became evident that a more suitable geographical boundary would be that of the Rakaia-Selwyn
groundwater allocation zone (RSGAZ) as defined by ECan (see Figure 4.1), as all the farmer
participants utilised groundwater resources abstracted from within this zone. As a result, this
research only considers the abstraction of groundwater resources. While this is arguably leaving out
the more complex abstraction type (in terms of quantification: it is more difficult to accurately
measure water in an open channel than in a closed pipe), the majority of water use in the Selwyn
area is from groundwater resources.
Covering an area of approximately 128,500 hectares between the Selwyn and Rakaia rivers, the
RSGAZ is classified as a ‘red zone’, where an assessment by ECan has found the total volume of
allocated water exceeds the allocation limit for the catchment (Canterbury Regional Council, 2010).
As can be seen in Figure 4.1, the RSGAZ is one of 10 groundwater catchments in Canterbury classified
as red zones. The RSGAZ is therefore a representative case of these over-allocated groundwater
catchments in the Canterbury region.
34
Figure 4.1
Groundwater allocation zones of Canterbury. Image taken from
http://ecan.govt.nz/services/online-services/pages/maps-canterbury-region.aspx on
3/08/2014
However, there was a unique aspect of the RSGAZ that does differentiate it from other catchments in
Canterbury: the review of the consent conditions of water permits to abstract groundwater from the
zone. As described in section 2.2.3, this review process was initiated by ECan in 2006 as part of the
Restorative Programme for Lowland Streams. A total of 523 water permits were reviewed as part of
this process, with the requirement for installation of water meters one of the key outcomes
(Canterbury Regional Council, 2010). The decision of the hearing commissioners was released on 12
February 2010, requiring permit holders with consent to abstract more than 357,000m3/annum to
install water meters by 1 September 2010, and all other permit holders by 1 September 2011
(Canterbury Regional Council, 2010). The date at which the case begins, August 2010, therefore
encompasses those water users who installed metering in advance of the Regulations due to the
consent review process. However, the review itself has been excluded from the case, and is instead
referred to for providing the ‘real life’ context that surrounded the introduction of the Regulations in
the RSGAZ. This is in recognition that “irrespective of what a consent condition does, or does not
explicitly require, water measurement and provision of data to the regional council will be required
by law” (Tricker et al., 2012) under the Regulations. In other words, the Regulations are the main
35
motivator for installing metering. The consent review process that took place in the RSGAZ is
therefore not considered to diminish the ability of the case to be representative of Canterbury.
Due to the temporal boundary of the case study, the research is only looking at the first of three
stages of the implementation of the Regulations, applying to those water users that consume water
at a rate in excess of 20 litres/second. In the Canterbury region, the majority of water permits (68%)
are at or above this first stage threshold, representing over 90% of the total allocated volume of
water in the region (Tricker et al., 2012). It is therefore assumed that the greatest effect of the
introduction of the Regulations in Canterbury will be seen during this first stage of implementation.
4.3 Data Collection
Simons (2009c) states that interviews, observation, and document analysis are the data collection
methods commonly used in case study research. The primary source of data from fieldwork used in
this research was semi-structured interviews with three participant groups, namely:
1. water users within the RSGAZ,
2. personnel from within ECan, and
3. key individuals from industry service providers.
These interviews were supplemented with the analysis of documentation relevant to the case,
particularly for establishing context. Observations made during the interviews were also used in this
capacity.
4.3.1 Semi-structured interviews
Interviews for the purpose of case study research have been described as more akin to guided
conversations than rigid or structured queries (Simons, 2009c; Yin, 2009). For this research, semistructured interviews were used for the collection of data. During the interviews, a set of openended questions (included in appendix B) was used as a guide to ensure a consistent line of inquiry,
but the direction of the questioning was also adapted based on each participant’s responses. This
ensured that a degree of flexibility and fluidity was maintained through the interview process,
necessary for addressing any unexpected themes or findings as they arose. Three sets of questions
were developed for the interviews, one for each of the main participant groups.
The interviews were conducted as face to face meetings at a location of the participants choosing,
generally in the case of the water users, at their home, and the workplace of the council and industry
participants. To ensure the interviewer was free to listen to the responses of the participants, with
36
the permission of the participants, the interviews were recorded using a digital voice recorder. No
written notes were taken during the interview itself, but immediately following the interview
personal reflections on key information or emerging themes were noted down. In instances where
face to face meetings were impracticable due to participants living outside of the region, interviews
were conducted over the phone. The interviews in these cases were unable to be recorded, so
written notes were taken during the interview itself and while the conversation was still fresh in the
interviewer’s memory, a summary of the discussion was written. This was then forwarded to the
participant to check for any misrepresentation of what was said.
4.3.2 Selection of participants
During the early stages of the research, informal conversations were held with key people involved in
the implementation of the Regulations, including individuals from ECan and Irrigation New Zealand.
The purpose of these discussions was to help refine the scope of the research, and to identify the key
stakeholders from which to choose participants. It was through these discussions that the
importance of the role that industry service providers (private companies that install and maintain
water meters, telemetry services etc.) play with respect to the implementation of the Regulations
was identified. The three stakeholder groups key to this research were therefore determined to be
the water users, regional council, and industry service providers.
Two groups of water users in the Selwyn area were identified during the discussions at the early
stage of the research. These groups, the Dunsandel Groundwater Users Association (DGUA) and the
Ellesmere Irrigation Society Incorporated (EISI), represent the interests of their members as water
permit holders with regard to water management related issues. The membership of the DGUA is
located primarily west of State Highway 1 between the Waimakariri and Rakaia rivers, whereas the
EISI membership is generally located to the east of State Highway 1. Both groups were involved in
representing their members during the hearings for the RSGAZ consents review. Initially, contact was
made to the leadership of both groups, requesting permission to approach the groups’ members.
Once permission had been given, the members were then contacted via email with a letter of
invitation to participate, a research information sheet, and a copy of the consent form attached. In
line with the Lincoln University Human Ethics Committee guidelines, those contacted were then
requested to ‘opt in’ to the research by contacting the researcher directly if they were willing to
participate. In total 10 water users contributed to the research.
Personnel from ECan were either identified by the researcher because of their position within the
organisation, or were contacted at the recommendation of another participant. Industry service
providers were initially identified from ECan’s list of approved water metering installation and
recording equipment providers. Specific individuals from within these organisations were then
37
recommended by other participants. As with the water users, contact with both those from ECan and
industry was initially via email with a letter of invitation, a research information sheet, and a copy of
the consent form attached.
In total, 14 participants were interviewed, of which 11 were conducted in person and recorded. The
remaining three interviews were conducted via the phone. Table 4.1 below provides a summary of
the participants and to which of the three participant groups they belong. Each participant has been
assigned a pseudonym to protect their anonymity. These pseudonyms have been used for any in text
references in this thesis.
The water users that were interviewed included those from the dominant farming types found in the
RSGAZ, from locations across the full extent of the catchment. This is therefore considered a
representative sample of farmers of the area. The participants from ECan included those in key
positions directly involved in the implementation and on-going management of the Regulations.
While other individuals from within ECan could have been approached, it was considered unlikely
that pursuing further interviews would reveal any further details.
Table 4.1
Summary of the research participants.
Description
Code used in text*
Respondent 1
Dairy farmer, DGUA member
1Df,D
Respondent 2
Dairy farmer, DGUA member
2Df,D
Respondent 3
Dairy farmer, DGUA member
3Df,D
Respondent 4
Dairy support and arable farmer, DGUA member
4Df+Af,D
Respondent 5
Dairy farmer, DGUA member
5Df,D
Respondent 6
Dairy farmer, DGUA member
6Df,D
Respondent 7
Arable farmer, EISI member
7Af,E
Respondent 8
Arable farmer, EISI member
8Af,E
Respondent 9
Arable farmer, EISI member
9Af,E
Respondent 10
Arable farmer, EISI member
10Af,E
Respondent 11
Environment Canterbury
11ECan
Respondent 12
Environment Canterbury
12ECan
Respondent 13
Environment Canterbury
13ECan
Respondent 14
Industry service provider
14ISP
* Where Df = Dairy farmer, Af = Arable farmer, D = Dunsandel, E = Ellesmere, ECan = Environment
Canterbury, ISP = Industry service provider
While many individuals from the industry were contacted, the response rate was unfortunately low.
This may have been due to the timing of the research, with the interviews coinciding with the
beginning of the irrigation season. Another factor that may have influenced the poor response rate is
the serious windstorm that struck Canterbury on 10 September 2013, during the data collection. This
storm caused widespread damage to irrigation infrastructure across the region, creating pressure on
38
the industry to make the necessary repairs before the peak of the irrigation season (Irrigation New
Zealand, 2013).
4.3.3 Human ethics
As the data collection for this case study involved human participants, it was important that they
were treated ethically, by adherence to the research principle of ‘do no harm’ throughout the
research process (Simons, 2009d). Although the risk of harm to participants was considered to be low
by the researcher, in recognition that freshwater management in Canterbury has been described as a
contentious issue (Lennox et al., 2011), approval was sought from the Lincoln University Human
Ethics Committee prior to the commencement of data collection.
Steps taken to ensure participants rights were respected throughout the research process included
allowing participants to:
•
Withdraw from the research at any point up until the 1 December 2013,
•
Remain anonymous, by the use of pseudonyms in the place of names within the thesis and
the interview record, and
•
Review a record of the interview.
All private information held about the participants was treated as confidential with access to such
information restricted to only the researcher and the supervision team. In light of these steps, the
Lincoln University Human Ethics Committee approved the research on the 15 July 2013.
4.3.4 Document analysis
To support the data provided by the interview process, document analysis was also undertaken,
including documents produced or published by ECan, by industry groups such as Irrigation New
Zealand, and by academics. The types of documents that were analysed included journal articles,
technical reports, evidence, submissions and the decisions of council hearings, and press releases.
Such documentation was useful for both supporting the interview data, and for establishing the
context of the case study. The use of additional data sources to supplement interview data helps to
ensure the validity of the data by introducing triangulation (Simons, 2009a; Yin, 2009).
4.4 Analysis of data
Analysis of case study data is often considered challenging due to the lack of fixed formulae or
prescribed methods (Yin, 2009). Instead, it requires the researcher to use their interpretive skills to
best utilise the available data (Simons, 2009a).
39
Due to the time and funding constraints of the researcher, it was decided against transcribing the
digital recordings of the interviews. Instead, the recordings were used alongside field notes that were
taken at the time to produce a written summary of the interview. These summaries contained time
reference points so that the researcher could easily go back to the recording to check specific details
as necessary. This process formed the first step of the data analysis by enabling the researcher to
become familiar with the content of the interviews. Each participant was provided with a copy of
their interview summary to review for any misrepresentation or unintended content.
Once the recordings were in written form, they could be analysed alongside other written
documents using thematic analysis. At this point, a group of codes were developed to represent
themes, ideas and patterns that had emerged from first impressions generated during the interviews
and from the writing of the interview summaries. An iterative process was then used to reassess the
data to confirm these initially selected codes, and identify any additional or secondary themes.
Similarly, the codes themselves were frequently reviewed to ensure they accurately represented the
theme in question. As described by Simons (2009a), the iterations were stopped once no more new
themes were found to emerge from the data and the categories were considered saturated. Yin
(2009) describes how the use of theoretical propositions is a useful strategy for guiding case study
analysis. In this case, frequent referral to the research questions, aims, objectives, and the
conceptual framework has been used to keep the analysis on track and within scope.
4.5 Summary
A qualitative research approach based on a case study was chosen for this research to allow for a rich
understanding of the participants experiences and perceptions about the subject matter. The case
study has focused on the implementation of the Regulations in the Rakaia-Selwyn Groundwater
Allocation Zone, an area which is considered to be representative of the greater Canterbury region.
Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with individuals from the key stakeholder
groups: water users, ECan, and industry service providers. Document analysis was also used to
supplement the interview data, and to help situate these data within their real life context. Guided
by the research questions, aims and objectives, a thematic analysis has then been used to analyse
the data. The following chapter details the results of this research, derived from the interviews and
document analysis.
40
Chapter 5
Results
5.1 Introduction
In this chapter the results of the research are presented, which have been grouped loosely in
chronological order. First the contextual background for the results is provided by describing key
events that took place prior to the introduction of the Regulations. The experiences of the research
participants during the implementation of the Regulations are then detailed. This is then followed by
a description of how the participants have reacted to the availability of water use data, and what
they believe this may mean for the future.
5.2 Background and context of results
The need for water metering to understand water usage in Canterbury had been identified by ECan
prior to the development of the Regulations. Over the course of the 2000s, ECan implemented a
number of measures related to water measurement, including establishing a dedicated Water
Metering Team. This section describes the events that occurred in the lead up to the introduction of
the Regulations in Canterbury. For many of the research participants, the boundaries between these
events and the introduction of the Regulations were often ill-defined making it difficult to talk about
one without reference to the others.
5.2.1 Early adopters of metering
From 2004, ECan required all new water consents issued over a threshold to install water meters and
keep records of water use (respondents 3(Df,D), 4(Df+Af,D), 12(ECan), 6(Df,D)) (Gunningham, 2008).
The introduction of this requirement coincided with a high demand for new water consents, driven
by an increase in the rate of conversion of dry land farms to irrigated dairy, particularly on land
located west of State Highway 1. Of the water users that participated in the research, four
(respondents 4(Df+Af,D), 6(Df,D), 1(Df,D), 3(Df,D)) obtained new water consents in the early 2000s to
enable irrigation of previously dry farm land and all four were required to install flow meters as part
of their consent conditions.
However, at this time the requirements of the consents were minimal in comparison to those now
outlined in the Regulations, demanding only that a flow meter be installed, and that monthly record
of flow be taken to be made available to ECan, if requested (respondent 1(Df,D)). Additionally, the
water measurement technology and support services available to water users through the irrigation
industry in the early 2000s were also very limited. These two factors combined meant that the data
41
produced was of little value to either the farmer as a water management tool, or the regulatory
authority as a compliance tool.
During their interviews, respondents 4(Df+Af,D), 6(Df,D), 1(Df,D) and 3(Df,D) describe how they first
installed simple mechanical flow meters as this was the only affordable technology available at the
time. All four participants found these to be inadequate and unreliable, requiring frequent
maintenance and replacement. As the data was only being recorded manually on a monthly basis, it
was often weeks before errors were identified (respondents 3(Df,D), 1(Df,D)). The quality of the data
being produced at this time was therefore poor, with large gaps and frequent unexplained anomalies
(respondent 12(ECan)). Respondent 1(Df,D) described how there was also very little support around
water metering during this period as the industry service providers were preoccupied with installing
large scale irrigation infrastructure worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, leaving little incentive for
them to focus on meters worth only a small fraction of that. There was also a lack of expertise within
the industry around metering at this time, as demonstrated by the occasional installation of water
meters back to front (respondent 6(Df,D)).
5.2.2 Metering trial
In response to the poor quality of data being produced by early water meter installations, in 2004
ECan began a programme to establish the best measurement technologies and data capture and
management methods for monitoring water use (respondent 12(ECan)). This trial lasted for
approximately three years with the goal of finding the most efficient and effective way to implement
water metering at a greater scale, in recognition that water measurement needed to be rolled out at
a regional level in order to be a truly valuable water management tool. The trial was led by ECan’s
newly formed water metering team who actively engaged with industry service providers in the
process, in addition to the water users. Respondent 14(ISP), who was involved in the trial, describes
how it was both triggered by and helped to inform discussion at a national level around the need for
water measurement and how this would best be achieved.
5.2.3 Rakaia-Selwyn consent review
Following the conclusion of the trial, ECan announced the Rakaia-Sewlyn Consent Review process as
part of its Restorative Programme for Lowland Streams in 2006. As described in section 2.2.3, the aim
of the review was to have a consistent set of conditions on water abstraction consents in the RSGAZ,
one of which was the installation of water meters and data loggers. Although the review was begun
in 2006, it was not until 2010 that the hearing decision was released, and the process proved to be
hugely expensive in terms of both time and money for ECan (respondent 11(ECan)). In addition to
these costs, the prolonged period of uncertainty for water users also meant that the process was
42
stressful for all parties involved as described by respondent 10(Af,E): “Environment Canterbury had
never done anything like this before, and they haven’t done anything since, for a good reason”.
Many of the farmers involved in the review saw the proposed changes as a direct threat to their
livelihood, creating tension between ECan and water users. The relationship between the two during
the review has been described as “hostile” at times, and the effect on water users was significant:
“we had a couple of people who were that worried about what was going to happen…that we were
genuinely concerned about their state of mind” (respondent 8(Af,E)). Conflict also arose between the
high users located west of State Highway 1, and the lower water users to the east. The source of this
conflict originated from uncertainty around who was having the greatest depletion effect on the
lowland streams; is it lowland users of shallow wells due to proximity to the streams, or inland users
because of the much greater quantities being abstracted from their deep wells. The conditions
proposed by ECan placed greater restrictions on the lowland farmers’ ability to abstract water, based
on the assumption that proximity had the most significant influence on stream depletion. This made
the affected farmers feel that they were being disproportionately targeted by the restrictions
(respondents 8(Af,E), 10(Af,E), 7(Af,E)).
Although the consent review process was characterised by contention, the source of the conflict was
focussed on the introduction of restrictions on abstraction during periods of low stream flow, and
the assumptions and methods that had been used to justify the restrictions. None of the participants
challenged the introduction of water metering during the review process, and many in fact
welcomed the move as they felt that the lack of detailed and accurate information on water use had
created a significant barrier to effective management of the groundwater resource: “information is
power. You can’t make decisions without it” (respondent 3(Df,D)). Similarly, respondent 1(Df,D)
specifically welcomed the introduction of water metering so that in the future when resource
consents conditions are in dispute, “we’re not arguing the facts, but just arguing the effects”.
The hearing decision for the consent review was released in February 2010, requiring meters to be
installed on the largest water users (≥ 357,000 m3/year) by 30 September 2010, and by 1 September
2011 for all other consent holders involved in the review. Despite the conflict the review triggered,
many believe that by the end of the process, the relationship between water users and ECan had
improved markedly (respondents 8(Af,E), 4(Df+Af,D), 3(Df,D), 10(Af,E), 1(Df,D)). The process also
allowed for the need for water meters to be discussed and become accepted by water users within
the RSGAZ prior to the introduction of the Regulations: “when the regulation came in, nothing was a
surprise to us. We were already down the track, we already had it implemented and we had time to
have lots of conversations and get together as a largish group about it” (respondent 8(Af,E)). As a
result of both the trial and the review, ECan was also well prepared for the implementation of water
43
metering at a large scale, including allocating funds for this purpose in its programme of works
(respondent 11(ECan)).
In 2009 ECan initiated a Request for Proposal (RFP) process to identify industry service providers who
could deliver the necessary range of services (supply and installation of equipment, data capture,
storage and processing etc.) to a suitably high quality in the RSGAZ. In 2010 following the release of
the Regulations this process was extended to include the whole of the Canterbury region, but has
subsequently been replaced by Irrigation New Zealand’s national Blue Tick accreditation scheme.
Respondent 14(ISP) provides services across much of the South Island, and describes how the
combined effect of the processes that took place in the lead up to the implementation of the
Regulations can be seen in comparing the progress that has been made in terms of water metering in
Canterbury compared to other regions such as Otago. This is despite Canterbury having the greatest
number of consents in need of meters of any region in New Zealand.
5.3 The implementation of the Regulations
5.3.1 Implementation in Canterbury shaped by the scale of the task
The implementation of the Regulations in Canterbury was shaped by the scale of the task and the
large number of consents to which they apply. Respondent 11(ECan) describes how across the
Canterbury region there are approximately 5,800 consents that fall under the requirements of the
first stage of the Regulations (those greater than 20 litres/second) and over 8,000 in total over all
three stages. In comparison, other regions such as Wellington and Manawatu have less than 200
consents in this first category. In order to meet the requirements of the Regulations by the stipulated
deadline for this large number of consents, ECan has relied on the irrigation industry to provide much
of the technical expertise and support to consent holders due to the limitations of their own
resourcing (respondents 11(ECan), 12(ECan)). ECan itself has instead focused on a role of advocacy
and education, working to inform water users of their regulatory obligations regarding water
metering (respondent 11(ECan)).
In addressing the huge number of consents in Canterbury, ECan has also been aided by some
ambiguity in the wording of the Regulations. Although they require that each water meter be verified
in situ as being suitably accurate, “verification is not defined in the Regs [sic]. Thank god”
(respondent 12(ECan)). While some regions have interpreted this requirement as necessitating that
each meter is checked for accuracy with an alternative measuring device, ECan, in recognition that
visiting every meter in the region is not feasible with the resourcing available, has instead relied on
ensuring good installation practices are maintained by the industry (respondents 13(ECan),
12(ECan)). The RFP process, first carried out during the Rakaia-Selwyn consents review, later
44
extended to the whole region and then superseded by INZ’s Blue Tick scheme, identified industry
service providers who were approved by ECan as able to provide suitably high quality services to this
end. The RFP and the subsequent national accreditation scheme were necessary during the
implementation as there were very few companies with proven track record in the area of water
metering to guide water users (respondents 11(ECan), 8(Af,E)).
However, the Regulations place the responsibility for meeting the requirements squarely on the
water user. As a result ECan has no direct authority over the industry, and must rely primarily on
market forces (through water users providing their custom to companies of good repute) to ensure
that these necessary high standards are maintained and that data quality remains high (respondent
13(ECan), 12(ECan), 11(ECan)). To date this relationship between water users, industry and ECan has
worked well, with some water users appreciative of the introduction of an independent third party
who can act as a mediator between water users and ECan should disagreements arise (respondent
14(ISP), 4(Df+Af,D), 2(Df,D)). However, respondent 14(ISP) also describes how at the time of the RFP
process, around 50 companies were approved to operate in Canterbury, with many appearing to be
trying “to make a quick buck” by selling and installing water meters during the initial period of high
demand. He notes that the number of companies that are now accredited by the INZ scheme in
Canterbury has roughly halved from those operating in 2010.
5.3.2 Providing consistency
The Regulations provide a set of minimum requirements that ensures a level of consistency in the
data across Canterbury and New Zealand as a whole (respondents 14(ISP), 13(ECan), 12(ECan),
11(ECan), 5(Df,D), 3(Df,D), 10(Af,E), 1(Df,D)). This baseline of data is considered to be important for
ensuring that the metering data is able to be used in aggregate for understanding freshwater
resource use in its entirety. After the experience of the Rakaia-Selwyn consent review process, those
involved believe that an additional benefit of the Regulations for the Canterbury region is that they
spare other water users from having to go through a similar expensive and stressful process
(respondents 11(ECan), 10(Af,E), 12(ECan), 1(Df,D)).
Although the Regulations provide a consistent set of minimum requirements for water users across
the region, the research participants all have additional requirements written into their resource
consent conditions as an outcome of the consent review process. Such use of more stringent
conditions by regional councils is allowable under Reg. 12 of the Regulations. While the exact
requirements vary from consent to consent in the Rakaia-Selwyn groundwater allocation zone, they
typically involve the need for electronic storage of data, for example using a data logger and in some
cases, telemetry.
45
However, the participants do not see these additional requirements in a negative light. Despite the
use of technology such as data loggers increasing the cost of the metering significantly, especially for
those who have multiple abstraction points where it can get up to the tens of thousands of dollars,
many water users prefer having an automated system that is managed by a service provider
(respondents 14(ISP), 4(Df+Af,D), 1(Df,D), 3(Df,D), 8(Af,E), 9(Af,E)). Participants describe how they
are happy to pay the increased costs of such a system for the confidence that it provides in terms of
meeting their obligations under the Regulations, with the additional benefit of requiring a minimal
amount of effort on the part of the consent holder (respondents 4(Df+Af,D), 1(Df,D), 3(Df,D), 8(Af,E)):
“people don’t want to worry about something like the metering. So if it is something that is
automated – it can just be without them having to worry about it – it’s perfect” (respondent 9(Af,E)).
In fact, during the consent review process, the water users were able to negotiate for telemetry
networks to be established in the Rakaia-Selwyn groundwater allocation zone, taking advantage of
the economies of scale that could be achieved by working collectively (respondents 7(Af,E), 3(Df,D),
8(Af,E), 10(Af,E), 9(Af,E), 6(Df,D), 13(ECan)). As a result of this, all of the participants in this research
are connected to telemetry networks, including those whose consents do not explicitly require them
to be (respondent 7(Af,E)). Respondent 14(ISP) also notes that as more and more water users have
connected to telemetered systems, the alternative of manually downloading data is becoming more
expensive as the cost of a technician to visit and download from each data logger is spread across
fewer farmers.
5.3.3 Challenges for water users during the implementation
For most water users, the implementation of the Regulations has been a relatively straight forward
process in terms of the physical installation of the equipment. The participants located inland around
Dunsandel (respondents 5(Df,D), 4(Df+Af,D), 1(Df,D), 3(Df,D), 6(Df,D), 2(Df,D)) are all operating farms
that have been converted to irrigation relatively recently during the late 1990s or 2000s. The modern
infrastructure on these farms was therefore either constructed to include water meter installation
from the start, or was able to be readily adapted. Although respondent 9(Af,E) and respondent
8(Af,E) had older wells and irrigation systems, they were both undertaking planned upgrades to their
systems around the time of the consent review process. This enabled them to incorporate the
introduction of water meters into the planned work schedule. The older irrigation systems of
respondent 7(Af,E) and respondent 10(Af,E) both required minor alterations to accommodate the
requirements of the Regulations, but neither felt that these modifications presented any significant
challenges.
Collectively, the water users consider that the biggest challenge that faced them during the
implementation of the Regulations was the delays in getting work done due to the high demand
46
created by the large number of consent holders in Canterbury (respondents 3(Df,D), 10(Af,E), 8(Af,E),
9(Af,E)). For example, despite having operational water meters installed for approximately three
years, both respondent 8(Af,E) and respondent 9(Af,E) are yet to receive the final paperwork
certifying the installations from the company that carried out the installations. Overall, water users
feel that the implementation of the Regulations has been well managed, and they have noticed and
appreciated the pragmatism used by ECan in dealing with issues as they have arisen (respondents
6(Df,D), 1(Df,D), 7(Af,E)).
5.3.4 Challenges facing ECan and industry during the implementation
From the perspective of ECan and industry, after addressing the large number of consents in the
short time available, the greatest challenge during the implementation has been getting water users
to understand their obligations under the Regulations and to see value that water metering data
could provide (respondents 11(ECan), 14(ISP), 13(ECan), 12(ECan)).
During the initial stages of the implementation, the water metering team at ECan provided a role of
advocacy and education, working closely with consent holders to help them understand the
requirements and find solutions to issues as they arose. As a result of this, over 80% of consent
holders covered by the first stage (>20 litres/second) of the Regulations have installed meters by
mid-2013 (respondents 13(ECan), 11(ECan)). Now that the November 2012 deadline for this stage
has passed, the role of ECan has become “less of the carrot and more of the stick” (respondent
11(ECan)) as they have transitioned to an enforcement role, actively targeting the remaining water
users who have failed to install meters. No punitive measures had been taken against water users
for non-compliance with the Regulations at the time of the interviews, but it was expected that this
would start within the weeks following (respondent 13(ECan)).
However, although most water users have installed meters as required, there is still a lack of
awareness amongst water users around their on-going obligations, with many consent holders
finding themselves with minor non-compliances (respondents 11(ECan), 13(ECan), 14(ISP)). Many of
these non-compliances relate to missing or poor quality data, particularly over the winter months
when farmers are not irrigating, and therefore not monitoring the flow measurement system.
Notifications (via text and email) sent by service providers flagging problems with the metering
equipment in the off season either go unnoticed or are ignored by consent holders under the
erroneous assumption that the metering is only necessary when water is being abstracted
(respondent 14(ISP)). Although farmers might not have any use for the metering data when they are
not abstracting, knowing when water is not being used is just as important for the monitoring of
water use by regulatory authorities which is why the Regulations require flow records be kept for a
year, not just the irrigation season. In part this lack of awareness is thought to be a consequence of
47
the popularity of automated metering systems, and the misguided belief by consent holders that
they are meeting their obligations or “ticking the box” by installing the meter and paying a service
provider to manage the data (respondents 14(ISP), 11(ECan)). However, as respondent 14(ISP) states
“there has to be some responsibility on the farmers here. They are paying us for a service and putting
the information on the web where they can see it every day. You could argue that if they aren’t
keeping on top of things, there is no excuse really”.
This lack of understanding around the on-going obligations of the consent holders in terms of the
Regulations is compounded by a lack of awareness as to how the metering equipment and the
telemetry systems operate. Respondent 14(ISP) describes how at the end of the irrigation season
farmers will often switch off the mains power in order to carry out maintenance on the irrigation
system, not realising that although the data logger has a back-up battery, it cannot last for the entire
off-season without a power source. Similarly, portable solar powered units are often stored away in a
dark shed for the winter, also leading to unintended loss of data capture. However, Respondent
14(ISP) also notes that these actions are not malicious attempts to influence the data, “it’s the lack of
awareness rather than trying to pull the wool over anyone’s eyes”.
Since the introduction of the Regulations approximately 10% of the consent holders that submitted
metering data were found to be non-compliant with the requirements of the Regulations
(respondent 12(ECan)). It is expected that this number will fall significantly over the next few years as
the awareness of consent holders with regard to their obligations improves.
5.4 Data use in farm management
All of the research participants believe that water use data produced as a result of the water
metering will improve the understanding the region’s freshwater resources. The phrase “we cannot
manage what we do not measure” or some variation of it was used by virtually all of the research
participants, demonstrating the belief that accurate information and data is fundamental for
managing these resources effectively. Prior to the introduction of the Regulations, only around 20%
of water consents in Canterbury were subject to active water measurement (respondent 11(ECan)).
In the absence of actual data on water use, the decision making of ECan in relation to water resource
management was based largely on assumptions, as was much of the on-farm decision making in
relation to managing water use within consented limits. The introduction of water metering was
therefore welcomed as a move towards knowing “what is actually happening rather than what is
perceived to be happening” (respondent 4(Df+Af,D)).
Despite the apparent high value that is placed on accurate water use data and its necessity for
informing decision making, the use of the metering data varies amongst the research participants.
48
5.4.1 Data as proof
The ECan website promotes the use of water metering data as a farm management tool to improve
water and thereby, farm efficiency, providing three case studies of farmers who have benefited from
the introduction of water metering on their farms (Environment Canterbury, 2013). However, while
some farmers have embraced it as a useful tool as in ECan’s case studies, others see it as just another
compliance requirement to get ticked off (respondents 11(ECan), 14(ISP)). Despite the promotion of
water metering as a farm management tool by ECan and industry, the majority of the farmer
participants see water metering first and foremost as a way to prove to ECan that they are operating
within their specific consent conditions (respondents 5(Df,D), 2(Df,D), 10(Af,E), 7(Af,E), 4(Df+Af,D),
8(Af,E), 9(Af,E)).
During the consent review process, many of the Ellesmere farmers facing restrictions felt that the
assumed water use figures used by ECan in determining the effects of abstraction on lowland
streams were much higher than reality (respondents 8(Af,E), 7(Af,E), 9(Af,E), 10(Af,E)). The data is
therefore also considered useful by the arable farmers in Ellesmere to provide proof that they are
low water users: “we were quite happy to put water metering in because we wanted to prove that
we don’t use very much water at all … but the other side of the state highway they are using
gazillions” (respondent 8(Af,E)). They believe that this data is essential for determining whether the
greatest effect on lowland streams comes from low users close to the streams, or high users located
further away.
5.4.2 Data to manage compliance in arable farming
The metering data is also used by the participants to avoid compliance issues from arising, but the
degree to which this occurs depends on the farm type and the sophistication of the irrigation system
being used.
The arable farmers spoken to (respondents 9(Af,E), 8(Af,E), 7(Af,E), 6(Df,D)) describe how they
irrigate only if and when their crops demand it, to supplement rainfall as necessary, over a short two
to three month period. The amount of water used in irrigation therefore varies from year to year,
dependent on the types of crops being grown and the rainfall received. These four participants’
farms were also all located on the lower plains, in the vicinity of Lake Ellesmere where the soils are
considered ‘heavy’ with a shallow depth to groundwater. This means that the land is prone to water
logging, discouraging high water use in irrigation: “we spend two thirds of the year getting rid of
water, and one third applying it” (respondent 7(Af,E)).
As a result of these factors, all four participants’ water use is typically quite low, particularly in
comparison to other farm types common in Canterbury, such as dairying. Respondent 8(Af,E)
49
describes how during the past two years since having access to the metering data, adequate rainfall
has occurred at crucial times in the season, resulting in water use of less than 25% of their consented
allocation. Similarly, respondent 7(Af,E) estimates that he has only ever used a maximum of 70% of
his consented allocation over the course of a year. Therefore knowing that they are operating well
within their consent limits means that to date, there has been little incentive to actively monitor the
data (respondents 8(Af,E), 9(Af,E), 6(Df,D)). Respondent 14(ISP) is aware of a number of famers in
this situation, including many who have never logged on to the web based system (one of the
services offered to those connected to the telemetry networks) to view their own telemetered water
use data.
The irrigation systems used by these farmers also tends to be relatively simple technology as the high
water table and the many spring fed streams and drainage ditches that exist in the Ellesmere area as
a result, creates farms with irregularly shaped paddocks. This places physical constraints on the types
of irrigation systems that can be used, restricting the use of large infrastructure such as centre pivots
and lateral travelling irrigators. The low water use that characterises arable farming further limits
the use of such systems, as the pay-back period on the capital investment is often too long to be
economically feasible (respondents 9(Af,E), 7(Af,E), 10(Af,E)). There is therefore a prevalence of
simple rotary boom and gun irrigators amongst the arable farmers in Ellesmere (respondents 9(Af,E),
10(Af,E), 7(Af,E)). The operation of such irrigation systems requires a significant amount of manual
input. This necessarily hands-on approach to irrigation and the lack of sophistication of the irrigation
technology being used contributes to the lack of interest in the telemetered data for informing farm
management decisions. In his study of the implementation of agri-environmental policy on Finnish
farms, Kaljonen (2006) refers to the farming concept of “living one’s field” (p. 211) to describe the
strong links between the farmer and his land. The hands-on approach of the arable farmers thus
makes the metering data somewhat redundant as they are able to make decisions based on their
present and past experiences.
Lack of sophistication in the overall technology is considered a significant barrier to the ability to use
the data (respondents 9(Af,E), 7(Af,E), 14(ISP)). At the very least, telemetry that allows access to the
data in near real time is stated as crucial to enabling the metering data to become useful: “if you only
have a logger, you haven’t got a management tool” (respondent 14(ISP)). This reflects the comments
of the participants who had meters installed prior to the Regulations, where manually recording of
flow data was felt to be a waste of time (respondent 1(Df,D), 3(Df,D), 12(ECan), 6(Df,D)). The use of
telemetry allows remote monitoring of water abstraction, particularly useful on larger farms with
multiple irrigation systems. The farm of respondent 9(Af,E), for example, is split into two blocks
located approximately three kilometres apart. He will sometimes log into the web interface to check
that the pump is still operating on the other block to save having to drive down the road to physically
50
check it. However, he notes that the time delay in the telemetry system of up to 15 minutes currently
limits the use of this data for more complex tasks (respondent 9(Af,E). He hopes that in the future,
upgrades to the telemetry network and increased sophistication of his irrigation system will enable it
to be operated remotely, saving him time in travelling between the two blocks.
5.4.3 Data to manage compliance in dairy farming
In contrast, the other farmer participants spoken to were all located inland on the upper plains,
between Dunsandel and Te Pirita. All six are involved in the dairy industry, either through the
operation of dairy farms (respondents 5(Df,D), 2(Df,D), 6(Df,D), 1(Df,D), 3(Df,D)) or in providing dairy
support (production of feedstuffs for dairy cows) (respondent 4(Df+Af,D)). As with the arable
farmers, most of these participants see the primary value of the water metering as a compliance tool
(respondents 5(Df,D), 2(Df,D), 4(Df+Af,D), 3(Df,D)), but due to the characteristics of their land and
farming practices, they are more likely to be using the data as a farm management tool as well.
Traditionally, the upper plains west of State Highway 1 has been used for dry land (unirrigated) sheep
and beef production or cropping, but over the last 20 years the land use has changed significantly,
with many farms converting to irrigated dairy production (respondent 6(Df,D)). The dairy industry
has become profitable enough to justify large capital expenditure in farms, and as such, the
participants are all operating large scale irrigation infrastructure such as centre pivots and lateral
travelling irrigators. Unlike the arable farmers where water is applied as a supplement to increase
security, for dairying, regular irrigation throughout the drier months is a necessity in a dry climate
such as Canterbury’s (respondent 11(ECan)). Dairy farms therefore use a much greater volume of
water in irrigation than arable farmers. Due to the reliance on irrigation, water security is crucial for
the success of a dairy operation, so deep wells (>100m depth) are commonly used, despite the large
cost associated with drawing water from such depths (respondents 3(Df,D), 1(Df,D), 14(ISP),
4(Df+Af,D)).
As high water users, the dairy farmers typically operate their irrigation systems much closer to the
upper limit of their consented allocation than the arable farmers. This provides a significant incentive
for the participants to monitor their metering data over the course of the irrigation season.
Furthermore the land of the upper plains is described as having light sandy soils which are much
more permeable than the heavy soils of the lower plains. Water can therefore be wasted much more
easily through over watering, as it can freely drain out of the bottom of the soil profile. Given the
high costs associated with abstracting water from deep wells, losing water in this manner is a waste
of money and therefore it is common amongst the participants to have soil moisture monitoring in
place in addition to the flow monitoring. With both monitoring instruments connected to the same
telemetry system and available to view through the same web interface, irrigation becomes an act of
51
balancing between the two limits; not exceeding consent conditions and not wasting water
(respondents 3(Df,D), 2(Df,D), 6(Df,D), 1(Df,D)). However, in most cases the decision making around
irrigation is influenced more by the soil moisture monitoring than the flow monitoring, and it tends
to be the farmers with a history of non-compliance issues that pay particular attention to the flow
monitoring (respondents 14(ISP), 4(Df+Af,D), 3(Df,D), 6(Df,D), 2(Df,D), 1(Df,D)). As a service provider,
respondent 14(ISP) describes how it is more common for clients to be in contact when there is an
issue with the soil moisture monitoring than the flow monitoring as they rely on this data more, and
therefore place a higher value on it.
Conversion to dairy from dry land farming requires substantial capital investment to establish the
necessary irrigation infrastructure. Given the large amounts of money involved, it has been common
for industry consultants to be involved throughout the process, in both the design of infrastructure
and the application for resource consents (respondents 12(ECan), 14(ISP)). Therefore, although dairy
farmers typically operate their irrigation systems much closer to their allocation limits than the
arable farmers, their irrigation infrastructure is often designed so that it is physically constrained to
operate within the consented limits (use of pumps that only pump water at rate below consented
flow rate limit for example). Respondent 12(ECan) reflects that there are some farmers who in this
situation who are completely unaware of what their consent conditions even are, due to their
reliance on consultants and the technology of their irrigation system. Such faith in the irrigation
technology to operate within the design parameters and permitted limits is another reason that the
flow metering data is considered primarily as a compliance tool (respondents 5(Df,D), 1(Df,D)).
However, reliance on the physical constraints of the irrigation system to ensure abstraction is within
allocation limits is not without risk, as there are external factors that can alter or influence the
system constraints. Both respondent 1(Df,D) and respondent 6(Df,D) are aware of cases where a
natural fluctuation in groundwater level (a rise of approximately 10 metres corresponding with the
end of a period of lower than average rainfall (Weber et al., 2011)) resulted in over-abstraction
occurring. The increase in water level reduced the work load of the pumps, allowing a greater
abstraction rate. While the water meter identified that the over-abstraction was occurring, there was
little that could be done about it because of the narrow operation range of the irrigation system:
“you can only throttle a pump back so much before you damage the electrics and the pump”
(respondent 1(Df,D)).
5.4.4 Data use in the longer term
Although the majority of farmers have not been using the data directly in their day to day decision
making so far, there is general consensus that in time, once a significant data set has been built up,
the metering data will be useful for identifying trends. Depending on the type of irrigation system
52
being used, the data can be useful for detecting issues or faults in the irrigation system (respondents
3(Df,D), 6(Df,D), 7(Af,E), 4(Df+Af,D)). “We know what our wells should do so if there are any sudden
fluctuations higher or lower, we know that something is not right” (respondent 4(Df+Af,D)). For
example a sudden increase in flow could indicate that a major leak has occurred somewhere in the
pipe network, and a general reduction in flow over time could be used to gauge when pumps need to
be lifted for maintenance. This is particularly useful for those with deep wells, where lifting the pump
is an expensive exercise (respondent 6(Df,D)).
Similarly, many of the participants believe that looking at trends in water use over a period of years
will help to drive improvements in water use efficiency (respondents 13(ECan), 11(ECan), 1(Df,D),
3(Df,D), 6(Df,D), 2(Df,D), 4(Df+Af,D)). The now operative Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan
places a greater emphasis on water use efficiency, and farmers will soon be required to demonstrate
that they are using water wisely (respondents 12(ECan), 11(ECan)). The metering data is expected to
be crucial for performing this task, and it is hoped that the irrigation industry and groups such as
Irrigation New Zealand will use the data to develop benchmarks against which farmers can measure
their water use efficiency (respondent 6(Df,D), 1(Df,D), 12(ECan)): “What are some quick metrics that
a farmer can do to see if they’re being a good irrigator or not” (respondent 1(Df,D)). However,
concern was also expressed about the potential for benchmarks to become a hindrance, if they do
not adequately allow for the complex range of factors that influence irrigation decision making
(respondent 7(Af,E)).
The water metering data is not necessarily in a form immediately useful in assisting with on-farm
decision making; therefore farmers see its value primarily as a compliance tool to prove that they are
operating within their permitted limits and to ensure they do so. The use of the data as a farm
management tool is dependent on the individual and the characteristics of their farm; a high user,
dependent on irrigation with a financial incentive to minimise water use is more likely to monitor the
metering data than a low user who is only irrigating as a supplement. Similarly the data is more
useful in operating a sophisticated, high tech irrigation system on a large farm where remote
monitoring can reduce human resource input, than with a relatively low tech system that requires a
lot of direct manual input. The attitude of the participants towards the water metering data can be
summarised by respondent 4(Df+Af,D): “I’ve got a water meter in now, how can I best use it to my
advantage”.
5.5 Water metering as a science tool
While the use of the water metering data for informing decision making at the farm scale varies
between the participants, they all want to see the data being used to inform and improve the
management of the resource as a whole through use in predictive modelling. There is a general
53
consensus across all the participants that understanding water use is essential for effectively
managing the region’s resources. “You can’t do anything without information … I don’t think that
[ECan] can build the models that they need to build [without metering data]” (respondent 14(ISP)).
ECan’s reliance on assumptions in the past is considered by many to be a major deficiency in water
management in Canterbury to date (respondents 8(Af,E), 7(Af,E), 9(Af,E), 14(ISP), 3(Df,D), 4(Df+Af,D),
1(Df,D), 6(Df,D)). “If you are going to manage a resource, you have to know what is happening with
that resource … ECan is there to manage the resource and they [have been] guessing” (respondent
9(Af,E)).
This is particularly the case for the farmers who have invested significant amounts of money in the
installation of flow monitoring equipment. For those with multiple abstraction points the cost of
implementing the metering is typically upwards of $30,000 (respondents 4(Df+Af,D), 1(Df,D),
3(Df,D)), with many paying extra to enable connection to telemetry, despite not being required to
(respondent 7(Af,E)). There is therefore a feeling amongst the farmers that they have made a major
contribution towards getting the data and that it is now up to ECan to use the data in such a way that
it will return value on their investment: “we’ve done our bit. It would be nice to see some results out
the other end” (respondent 7(Af,E)).
Although the staff at ECan agree that the Regulations present an opportunity for improving the
science of predictive modelling in relation to the resource and they intend to use it to this end
(respondents 11(ECan), 12(ECan), 13(ECan)), there is still some concern amongst the farmers that the
data will go unused or will not be used to its full potential (respondents 7(Af,E), 9(Af,E), 1(Df,D),
8(Af,E)). Respondent 1(Df,D) is worried that the data will “disappear into a deep dark hole, never to
be seen again” because in the three years of submitting metering data, no form of acknowledgment
of receipt has been received from ECan. Similarly, despite receiving a summary report this year based
on the metering data and resource consents held for the respondent’s own property, respondent
8(Af,E) was disappointed that an aggregate report covering the collective consents of the Ellesmere
Irrigation Society was unable to be produced by ECan (respondents 8(Af,E), 7(Af,E), 9(Af,E)). However
respondent 7(Af,E) reflects that “regulatory authorities are always very quick to make people pick
things [such as the Regulations] up, but they are very slow to deliver any value on that … But I
appreciate the sheer volume of information that they are dealing with, and the intricacies of every
consent being different”. Although farmers understand that ECan is faced with a large task in
processing all the data, consent holders are anxious to see that something beneficial is produced
from it.
54
5.5.1 From compliance to science
The Regulations provide very little detail around the form in which the data should be recorded or
submitted, requiring only that the data be submitted in a format that is considered suitable for
auditing by the relevant regulatory authority. During the metering trial and the consent review
process, ECan worked alongside industry service providers to develop a basic reporting structure that
provided a simple daily breakdown of water use (respondent 14(ISP)). The recording of metering
data in this way is perfectly adequate for the purposes of monitoring of compliance against consent
conditions. If a non-compliance is detected then the raw data can be accessed and investigated in
greater detail to determine whether any further action needs to be taken by the authority. Whereas
if no issues are flagged, then there is no need for valuable resources to be spent looking through the
raw data in any detail.
However, if the metering data is to be used to inform predictive modelling science as is generally
desired by all parties, then the data needs to be of a much higher quality (respondent 12(ECan)).
Each data set needs to be manually audited, with any anomalies such as power surges (common in
wet conditions due to interference from electric fences) that cause spikes or gaps in the data to be
logged in a standardised manner. This process is essential for use as an input into models to ensure
that the data is uniform temporally and spatially. Auditing the data in this manner represents a
massive increase in workload associated with the data capture and management. ECan is currently in
the process of developing a data management protocol for this purpose, though due to the large
number of data sets in the region, ECan does not have the resources within the existing water
metering team to do this auditing (respondents 12(ECan), 11(ECan)).
At present, industry data hosting services only provide the raw data, complete with any erroneous
spikes and gaps to ECan, in addition to a brief report summarising the daily volumes, highlighting any
non-compliances that have occurred over the course of the year. Respondent 14(ISP) describes how
when the company first started to offer data hosting services, the staff would go through the data,
attaching comments to any anomalies in the data to explain the cause if known, as some of the
clients requested that this be done. The relatively small number of consents being monitored at this
time meant that this was feasible. However, with the increase in metering as a result of the
Regulations the respondent states that “it’s become too big a monster in many respects … we’ve got
2,000 meters out there. We are going to need another 10 guys just to process that information”.
In addition to the lack of immediate resourcing available, respondent 14(ISP) is also aware that if
ECan starts to require data hosts to audit the metering data, the costs associated with this extra work
will need to be pushed back on to their clients, the water users. Knowing that clients of the company
have already contributed substantially to the implementation of the water metering, respondent
55
14(ISP) is reluctant to further burden them financially: “this information that we are collecting is for
compliance, and the consent holder pays for it to the compliance level. [ECan] want to bring in a
certain quality of data to use for science, and I don’t believe that the consent holder should be
paying for that … Why should they? [It] would be more appropriate for it to be funded out of the
general rates as everyone is going to benefit”.
Respondent 14(ISP) also describes a case in the past where at the request of the client, raw metering
data was ‘smoothed’ with erroneous spikes and gaps removed and replaced by comments before
the data was submitted to ECan. This led to an accusation that the data had been deliberately
tampered with, and ECan threatened to prosecute both the consent holder and the data host.
Although the prosecution did not proceed, the experience has made the respondent wary of
manipulating metering data in the future, due to potential issues of liability.
Although the Regulations do not explicitly state a purpose, to the majority of the consent holder
participants, they are seen primarily as a compliance tool, providing proof that consent conditions
are being adhered to, and for assisting in managing water use within these limits. Despite this, all
participants agree that the metering data should also be utilised in informing science and modelling,
to aid with understanding freshwater resources and improve their management. But in extending the
purpose of the Regulations from one of compliance to one of science, the data needs to be of a much
greater quality. With consent holders already feeling that they have contributed their share of the
costs of metering during the implementation of the Regulations, how this additional work around
data management is to be funded remains unclear, and is expected to be a source of contention in
the near future.
5.5.2 Accuracy of water metering
Water flowing in a closed pipe system has the benefit of being a very measurable parameter. With
the metering technology available today, achieving an accurate figure for the volume of water that is
abstracted is a straightforward process. This has led to some participants questioning why water
metering hadn’t been introduced at a regional scale much earlier, instead of ECan relying on
assumptions as for past decision making (respondents 7(Af,E), 8(Af,E), 3(Df,D)). But although the
water abstracted from the ground is easily quantifiable with a high level of certainty, there are still a
great number of other factors that cannot be quantified so readily within water management.
Given that groundwater is invisible from the surface and has ill-defined boundaries, accurately
quantifying the resource as a whole and the effects of abstraction is difficult and is characterised by a
high level of uncertainty (Gunningham, 2008; Weber et al., 2011). This is further compounded by the
fact that the resource is a natural system that is in a constant state of flux due to a range of both
56
natural and anthropomorphic factors. For instance, the 10 metre increase in groundwater level
described by respondents 1(Df,D) and 6(Df,D) is attributed to a natural fluctuation (at the end of a
dry spell), whereas a sudden drop in groundwater pressure experienced around Lake Ellesmere every
spring is attributed to the increase of abstraction from deep wells on the upper plains at the start of
the irrigation season (respondent 9(Af,E), 7(Af,E)). Despite the new availability of water use data
created by the introduction of the Regulations, it is likely that when the accurate and largely
indisputable metering data is introduced as an input into the science of predictive modelling, the
high uncertainties associated with other parameters will reduce the overall effectiveness of the
information. For instance, the debate over which of the two dominant models (Aqualinc vs. bathtub)
better represents the hydrogeological situation in Canterbury is likely to remain (Weber et al., 2011).
The Rakaia-Selwyn groundwater allocation zone has been classified as a ‘red’ zone by ECan since
2004, where the volume that has been currently allocated is considered to be greater than that
which the resource can sustainably provide (Environment Canterbury Groundwater Resources,
2012). Many of the participants accept that over time, once a decent data set is built up, the
metering data may be useful in informing allocation practices in the future as they feel actual data
has got to be an improvement on assumption (respondents 13(ECan), 8(Af,E), 10(Af,E), 9(Af,E),
4(Df+Af,D), 1(Df,D), 3(Df,D), 7(Af,E)). However, not everyone agrees that the catchment is overallocated. Respondents 4(Df+Af,D), 1(Df,D), 9(Af,E) and 6(Df,D) believe that the issue of overallocation has been overstated by ECan, stressing that water allocation and water use are two
separate things. They emphasise that water use is routinely lower than the total volume that is
allocated across the region
Similarly, during the consent review process, it was assumed that the greatest contribution to the
reduced flows in the lowland streams were from those abstracting water from shallow wells in close
proximity to the streams. In making this judgment in the absence of actual data, ECan had assumed a
figure for water used by the lowland farmers considerably higher than the past two years’ worth of
metering data has shown to be used (respondents 8(Af,E), 9(Af,E), 7(Af,E)). However respondent
9(Af,E) notes that although the actual water use was much lower than assumed, the streams were
still suffering from reduced flows during these seasons. This would indicate that either the effect of
the shallow abstractions has been greatly underestimated, or that other factors, such as the
abstraction taking place on the upper plains play a significant role in influencing flows in the lowland
streams: “who is causing low flows? Is it us because of proximity, or is it the accumulative effect of
everyone? ... We are the ones that are supposed to be affecting the streams, but if we aren’t
pumping it, the streams should be flowing” (respondent 9(Af,E)). Due to the complex nature of
groundwater resources, quantifying such effects will always remain characterised by uncertainty.
57
Although access to accurate water metering data is a major improvement from relying on assumed
figures for water abstraction in understanding and managing the resource, there are many sources of
uncertainty surrounding the resource. When the data are introduced into the wider resource
management arena, the certainty and indisputable nature of the accurate water metering data is
likely to be lost amongst the other factors. Given the high value that water has for farmers,
contention around freshwater and its allocation is therefore likely to remain.
5.5.3 Water abstraction as a proxy for water use
The water users that participated in the research all have resource consents attached to their
properties for the abstraction of water for the purpose of irrigation. The measurement of water
abstracted in these cases, is therefore directly equivalent to the quantity of water used for irrigation.
However this is not always the case.
In Canterbury there are many irrigation schemes where water is abstracted under resource consent
and then distributed to multiple individual farms for use in irrigation. In such cases, because the
Regulations exist within the framework of the RMA, only the initial abstraction is required to be
monitored with flow metering as this is the activity that requires resource consent. As the use of the
water for irrigation is a permitted activity (it is not subject to resource consent), the individual farms
have no obligation to install meters to provide a record of their water use (respondents 11(ECan),
14(ISP)). The water metering data is therefore only telling half the story. While the water metering
provides an accurate account of how much water is being abstracted from the freshwater resources
across the region, it does not necessarily provide an accurate indication as to where or when that
water is then used. In those areas where irrigation schemes exist, or when the data is intended to be
used in aggregate across the region, the use of the data in science and modelling may therefore be
limited if it is seeking to understand patterns in water use.
While ECan is unable to require farmers in this situation to install meters, it has been actively
encouraging the operators of irrigation schemes to introduce metering within the schemes
distribution networks. Respondent 11(ECan) expects that water metering will be installed on most
schemes voluntarily in time, either through operators wanting to ensure that water use is in
accordance with their rules, or by the farmers wanting to ensure that they are getting the volume of
water that they have paid for. The effect of this limitation may therefore reduce in time.
58
5.6 Outcomes of metering – fear of the future
5.6.1 Increased scrutiny of water users
For the majority of consent holders, the introduction of water metering under the Regulations
represents monitoring of an activity that was previously unmonitored. With the wide scale use of
automated data capture and telemetry systems, not only is the data now available, in many cases it
is available in near real time. This opens up the consent holders’ behaviour to a much greater level of
scrutiny than has occurred in the past.
The farmer participants generally accept this increased scrutiny as a necessary consequence of the
Regulations, and actually view it as a positive (respondents 9(Af,E), 7(Af,E), 3(Df,D), 5(Df,D), 2(Df,D),
4(Df+Af,D), 1(Df,D)). Reflecting on the idea of the metering data as proof (section 5.4.1), the consent
holders welcome the potential scrutiny as a way of demonstrating to ECan that they are operating
within their respective consent conditions. They also see it as a useful way to improve the public’s
perception of the agricultural sector by showing that as farmers, “we are doing our bit for monitoring
the resource and how we use it” (respondent 9(Af,E)). Even respondent 2(Df,D), who feels like water
use “is totally under the spotlight” after the metering revealed that there was over-abstraction from
two of his wells, recognises the importance of maintaining a good relationship with both ECan and
the wider public.
Although the consent holders feel that there is now greater scrutiny of their water use, they also
understand that ECan is dealing with a huge volume of data and that they are therefore physically
unable to investigate every consent holder’s data in great detail. As respondent 12(ECan) describes,
although the introduction of metering increases scrutiny of water use, “it is not like big brother is
watching over them”. It is expected that for the purposes of monitoring compliance against consent
conditions, those consent holders with a known history of non-compliance will be checked, along
with an audit of a random sample from the remaining the consent holders (respondents 11(ECan),
13(ECan)).
5.6.2 Increased enforcement
Although the consent holders accept that increased scrutiny is necessary for effective resource
management, there is still concern that the availability of the metering data will lead to an increase
in enforcement activity for compliance issues. This is largely due to a long held belief that
“compliance officers don’t do grey” (respondents 6(Df,D), 14(ISP), 11(ECan)).
The first year of data collection was expected to reveal a number of farmers who were unwittingly
over-abstracting, simply because they have never had access to such information in the past. ECan
59
intended to adopt a pragmatic approach during this period, issuing warnings to the farmers rather
than pursuing punitive measures (respondents 13(ECan), 11(ECan), 14(ISP)). Respondent 2(Df,D) was
found to be in this situation with two of the four wells on his property exceeding an instantaneous
flow limit. Once aware of the issue, the respondent approached ECan with the proposed solution of
putting four the wells under a single consent so that the lower abstracting wells could balance out
the higher ones. Despite receiving verbal confirmation from ECan that this solution was acceptable,
respondent 2(Df,D) was surprised to receive a warning letter about the matter. This approach was
considered to be greatly unfair given his attempt to be proactive approach in finding a solution. It is
stories such as this amongst the farming community that make consent holders nervous about how
compliance issues will be dealt with in the future (respondents 1(Df,D), 6(Df,D)).
As previously mentioned, ECan is currently transitioning between the role of education and support,
to one of enforcement with regard to the Regulations (respondent 11(ECan)). This change of
approach has been noticed by the consent holders with many receiving warnings for minor
transgressions that would have gone undetected in the past (respondents 14(ISP), 1(Df,D), 8(Af,E),
9(Af,E), 6(Df,D)). Respondent 8(Af,E) notes that while those familiar with the processes of the RMA
do not get too concerned when receiving such notifications from ECan, for others, particularly older
farmers it can be a stressful experience.
The increase in enforcement activity is also considered in part to be due to the large volume of
consents that must be monitored. The compliance team at ECan relies on automatically generated
exception reporting to identify individuals that need to be followed up with (respondent 13(ECan)).
While this process is efficient for dealing with the volume of consents, it limits the capacity for
personal judgement to be applied: “the fast solutions are a tool that tells people if they are being
naughty or not, without the human intervention in the middle” (respondent 14(ISP)).
While this black and white approach could be considered to be fairer as “everyone gets nailed
equally as there are no grey areas” (respondent 14(ISP)), it could also potentially antagonise consent
holders in cases where a non-compliance is unavoidable or due to a factor beyond their immediate
control. Respondents 9(Af,E) and 10(Af,E) found themselves in this situation when the telemetry
network they are connected to failed to transmit their data over a period of weeks. Technicians from
their service provider were called but were unable to identify any fault with the equipment.
Eventually, it was discovered that a new cell phone tower had been erected near the network base
station as part of the Government’s rural broadband programme, and this was interfering with the
telemetry signal. Although the relationship between water users and ECan is considered greatly
improved since the consent review process, the past conflict has certainly not been forgotten
60
(respondents 8 (Af,E), 7(Af,E), 1(Df,D)). Actions viewed as unfair could therefore aggravate past
grievances.
Similarly, respondent 1(Df,D) fears that a black and white approach to compliance will fail to
adequately accommodate the reality of operating large irrigation infrastructure where the
operational constraints mean that there is very little flexibility available to accommodate unexpected
events. In the event of a natural rise in groundwater, as has happened recently in parts of the RakaiaSelwyn groundwater allocation zone, the respondent notes that to throttle back pumps to remain
within the instantaneous flow rate limits may not only damage the equipment, but may also reduce
the water use efficiency of the system, as it is no longer operating within the optimal design
conditions. In situations such as this, where an unforeseeable natural event has created the noncompliance, it is considered crucial to adopt a pragmatic approach (respondent 1(Df,D)). It may be
more efficient to operate the system over the instantaneous rate limit, but to do so for a reduced
period of time so that overall volume limits are not exceeded.
Among some consent holders, there is an additional concern that the metering will be used to justify
the introduction of volumetric charging or a water tax (respondents 10(Af,E), 8(Af,E), 11(ECan)).
“Why else would you put a water meter on if you aren’t going to charge?” (respondent 10(Af,E)).
Charging for water has been identified as a potential mechanism for improving water use efficiency
that could be introduced in New Zealand (Counsell & Evans, 2005; Gunningham, 2011a; Land and
Water Forum, 2012), despite this, most of the research participants expect that the introduction of
such a measure would be hugely contentious and is therefore unlikely in the immediate future.
However, the introduction of the Regulations has come at a time when farmers are facing a range of
new regulatory measures, such as the introduction of nutrient limits. The costs (both in terms of time
and money) associated with compliance can be significant, and as respondent 7(Af,E) reflects “it
seems that the regulatory stuff is set up for the corporates to thrive and the family farms to be
pushed out”.
5.6.3 Highlighting unused water
While the consent holders around Ellesmere with typically low water use welcome the metering as
an opportunity to prove that their water use is low, there is apprehension around how the data will
be used in the future: “water metering is probably 55% great for us. But it has also probably 45%
created worry of what will happen in the next 15 years” (respondent 8(Af,E)). The source of this
anxiety is that in highlighting that actual water use is low, and making the discrepancy between
water use and water allocation more visible, the metering data may be used to justify reducing
allocation limits (respondents 8(Af,E), 9(Af,E), 7(Af,E), 10(Af,E)).
61
There are two main sources of this concern. The first is that for arable farmers, water use can vary
significantly dependent on the climatic conditions during the growing season, and the crops being
grown (respondents 7(Af,E), 10(Af,E), 9(Af,E)). Although the past two years since meters have been
installed have seen low water use, in less favourable conditions, water demand can rise dramatically:
“if we get a really dry year, we can triple what we are currently using” (respondent 9(Af,E)). There is
therefore concern that if only a few years’ worth of data is used to set new allocation limits, it may
greatly reduce their capacity of these farms to operate in future dry years.
The second source of concern is that reducing allocation limits to reflect the current water use will
restrict the future development of the property to land uses with a similar or lesser water demand:
“it restricts your future land use basically. If our allocated water, which is not massive, is reduced
right back, then that puts the kibosh on conversion [to dairy]. Which isn’t necessarily what we want
to do, but the next generation may want to” (respondent 8(Af,E)). With the catchment already
classified as over-allocated, consent holders know that increasing their allocation limits in the future
will be virtually impossible. They therefore place a high value on continuing to hold the right to use
water in surplus of their current needs, as this can affect the value of their whole property
(respondent 7(Af,E)).
Many of the farmers feel that they are being responsible guardians of this allocated and unused
water and that it would therefore be unjustified for ECan to take it from them (respondents 9(Af,E),
7(Af,E), 8(Af,E)): “if we aren’t using it, the environment is receiving it. So it is almost like our
environmental contribution to get the streams to flow” (respondent 9(Af,E)). This might be the case
at present, however if they all convert to higher water demand land uses in the future, as they wish
to protect their right to do, then this benefit will be lost and the streams will be worse off. The
reasoning behind not reducing allocation limits is therefore contrary to their claims of environmental
protection.
However, there is a danger that the threat of allocation reduction may encourage a use it or lose it
mentality amongst consent holders if ECan does decide to pursue it. The reduction of allocation
limits to help reduce the pressure on the resource from over-allocation may therefore create the
perverse effect of increasing water use (respondent 11(ECan)). The high value that access to water
represents for a consent holder and their property means that it is a resource that is worth
protecting. For arable farmers whose water use is low in an average year, when faced with the
concerns cited above, some already feel under pressure to use more water in order to protect their
right to it: “you are almost encouraged to go out and use as much water as possible to protect [it]”
(respondent 10(Af,E)).
62
5.6.4 Central Plains
Although the issue of unused water is of primary concern for arable farmers at present, the likely
introduction of the Central Plains Irrigation Scheme (CPIS) means that some of the dairy farmers from
the upper plains will face the same issue of highlighting unused water in the future. The first stage of
CPIS will supply surface water from the alpine-fed Rakaia River under gravity to 20,000ha across the
plains of central Canterbury between the Rakaia and Horarata rivers (Central Plains Water Ltd, 2014;
Lomax et al., 2010). The scheme is especially attractive for those farmers who currently rely on
abstracting groundwater from deep wells where the electricity costs of pumping can be in the order
of hundreds of thousands of dollars over a season: “it won’t get any cheaper to pump water”
(respondent 3(Df,D)).
For some, the opportunity to use surface water originating from the inland alpine environment is
that attractive in terms of cost reduction that they plan to completely abandon their existing
abstraction infrastructure and consents (respondents 6(Df,D), 3(Df,D)). A key driver for this is the
large fees that the local lines company (Orion) charges consent holders to stay connected to the
electricity network, as irrigation consumes such a large portion of electricity demand (respondents
12(ECan), 6(Df,D)). Though others plan to continue to hold on to their groundwater consents as
“insurance” for the event that the scheme is unable to meet demand (respondents 2(Df,D), 5(Df,D)).
Many see the introduction of CPIS as the only way that the over-allocation in the Rakaia-Selwyn
Groundwater Allocation Zone can be solved, as once it is constructed and operational, it will see
many large water users no longer using groundwater from the upper plains (respondents 6(Df,D),
3(Df,D), 8(Af,E), 7(Af,E), 2(Df,D), 5(Df,D), 12(ECan)). In fact some believe that the effect may be so
significant that those on the lowland plains will complain about the excess water (respondent
3(Df,D)). However, by continuing to hold groundwater consents as insurance, farmers who are using
the scheme as their primary irrigation source could jeopardise this, as the water would remain able
to be abstracted. In this case, it is expected that ECan will use the lack of use of the water, supported
by the metering data, to justify the non-renewal of these consents when they expire (respondent
12(ECan)).
5.7 Summary
Prior to the introduction of the Regulations, steps had already been taken by ECan to introduce
water metering to existing unmonitored consents. Given the poor quality of the data being produced
by those consents with a monitoring requirement, ECan initiated a trial to find the best way of
implementing water metering on a greater scale. This was followed by the review of 523 consents in
63
the RSGAZ to include among other things, water metering, a process that proved to be hugely
expensive in terms of time and money.
The Regulations were welcomed by ECan as a way of avoiding the need to repeat the consent review
process by introducing a mandatory minimum level of monitoring for all consents over the five
litres/second threshold. While some farmers did have to make minor upgrades to their infrastructure
to accommodate the new metering requirements, most felt that the greatest challenge during the
implementation was due to the struggle of the industry to cope with the scale of the task in terms of
numbers of consents. In addition to coping with the huge number of consents, the main challenge for
ECan and the industry was the lack of understanding of the farming community as to their
obligations.
The farmers see the Regulations primarily as a compliance tool and the metering data as a way to
prove to ECan that they are complying with their consent conditions. Whereas arable farmers have
little use for the data in the operation of their farms, dairy farmers are more likely to monitor the
data to ensure they do not over-abstract. Both arable and dairy farmers believe that the data will be
useful in the long term once a significant data set has been established, for identifying trends in
water use. Furthermore, they would also both like to see the data being used by ECan to improve the
science that resource management decisions are based on. While ECan does intend to do this, it will
require the quality of the data to be much greater and questions have been raised as to who should
pay for this.
Despite the farmers welcoming the metering data as proof and wishing to see it used to improve
science, they also worry about how the data will be used in the future. The increased scrutiny already
appears to have increased the enforcement activities, and there is concern that the metering will be
used as justification to reduce the allocations of low water users, such as the arable farmers. Thus,
while the Regulations have been widely accepted as a necessary and useful tool, they have also
created anxiety for the future. The following chapter explores these findings in terms of the
theoretical framework.
64
Chapter 6
Discussion
6.1 Introduction
The purpose of this study has been to examine the role that standards play in reconfiguring orderings
in social and natural systems. In this section, the results of the fieldwork in Chapter 5 are linked to
the conceptual framework set out in Chapter 3. The results will first be examined through the lens of
co-production, with examples of the reconfiguration of natural and social orders examined in terms
of the four sites of co-production identified by Jasanoff: making identities, making discourses, making
representations, and making institutions. The role that the Regulations has played in this coproduction will then be discussed. This chapter will be concluded by placing these findings in the
context of freshwater resources in Canterbury.
6.2 Co-production in the implementation of the Regulations
The Regulations are a filter standard that embodies and expresses power, path dependence and
reinforces a network of existing and perhaps future standards. While the intention of standards is to
create structure and predictability, Busch (2011) states that “standards always produce partial and
impermanent orderings and never complete ones” (p. 6). In other words, the order that is created
through the introduction of a standard, is constantly open to negotiation and change, as standards
always incorporate a metaphor or a simile: they are a measured comparison and never an absolute
(Busch, 2011).
As a standard, the Regulations are an instrument of governance that can be used as justification for
imposing sanctions upon water users for breaching their resource consent limits. But they are also an
instrument of quantification that seeks to contribute to the production of knowledge around
freshwater resources. Jasanoff (2004a) argues that the idiom of co-production is useful for
“highlighting the often invisible role of knowledges, expertise, technical practices and material
objects in shaping, sustaining, subverting or transforming relations of authority” (p. 4). This section
seeks to examine the Regulations through the lens of co-production, to explore the role that
standards play in constructing and reconstructing order in natural and social systems.
In Chapter 3, the conceptual framework of co-production is described as a critique of the tradition of
considering facts, nature, policy, and objects as separate from the domains of culture, subjectivity,
values and politics. Rather, Jasanoff (2004a) argues that we gain explanatory power for the
examination of complex and controversial phenomena by considering nature and culture as being
65
produced simultaneously, intertwined in such a way that makes their separation impossible. She
identifies four pathways along which co-production typically occurs: making identities, making
representations, making discourses, and making institutions. Evidence collected during the research
demonstrates that standards co-produce social and natural order along these pathways. Examples of
this from the results are described in the following sections.
6.2.1 Making identities through standards
Standards are intended to help reduce unpredictability by creating order and structure. An object or
person subject to a standard can be expected to have the same characteristics as all the others
subject to the same standard. However, standards can be used for more than just the creation of
uniformity. They can also be used to differentiate. In making a claim of standardisation, standards
also create a distinction between the standardised thing, and all other things (Busch, 2000, 2011;
Stone, 1997).
Standardised differentiation is commonly used by people in the construction of identities. For
example, Fairtrade coffee is a standardised product: it must meet all the same food safety and
consumer standards that non-fair trade coffee must meet. But in choosing to purchase a Fairtrade
coffee over the available alternatives, a consumer is sending a signal to the wider world that they are
a person that supports issues of social justice, or (perhaps more cynically) that they can afford the
luxury of paying for a more expensive product. The consumer is therefore choosing, either
consciously or not, to distinguish her or his self as belonging to a defined social group. Jasanoff
(2004a) argues that the making of identities is one of the four common sites of co-production. In
studying the introduction of the Regulations in the RSGAZ, the research demonstrates how
standardised differentiation co-produces social and natural order through the construction of
identities.
While standards may be specifically designed to promote either sameness or difference, there will
always be a degree of ambiguity to them. Whether a standard is seen as universal (promoting
uniformity) or particular (promoting differentiation) is largely dependent on the situation and the
network in which it is placed. The Regulations for instance can be interpreted as a universal standard
promoting standardisation as they seek to introduce a uniform method for measuring abstracted
water. When the Regulations are placed in the context of the regulatory authority trying to improve
understanding of water resources so as to manage them better, it appears that the Regulations have
been designed with standardisation in mind.
However, Busch (2011) argues that there is a “symmetry between standards for people and
standards for things” (p. 4) and that the two can never be fully separated (Busch, 2000). Therefore,
66
while the Regulations introduce a standardised method of measuring abstracted water, they are
simultaneously introducing a measure of the people who are abstracting the water. In the context of
compliance, the Regulations cease to be only about the monitoring of water, and can instead be
interpreted as a standard to monitor water user behaviour. In this context they clearly become a
standard of differentiation, distinguishing between those whose water use, and thus who
themselves, comply with their resource consent conditions, and those that do not.
During the interviews, many of the interviewed farmers stated that the identity for the whole
farming community in the eyes of ECan and the general public in the past, appeared to have been
formed on the basis of a small number of instances of unacceptable behaviour and high profile
conflicts played out in the environment court. They felt that the dominant discourses in the past
reflected an assumption of poor management and non-compliance, even though without monitoring,
ECan was limited in its ability to prove bad behaviour. This combined with the history of contention
that has characterised freshwater management in Canterbury, and the reliance of ECan on
assumption in its past decision making, has led to the water metering data being commonly viewed
by the water users as proof. The water users have welcomed the opportunity to be able to
distinguish themselves from what they perceive to be a very small minority of farmers who
deliberately flout the rules, breaching their consents and using water inefficiently. Through the
process of implementing the Regulations, installing a water meter and gathering data on the quantity
of water at significant personal expense, an identity has been constructed for the farmers as
responsible and worthy recipients of the portion of the freshwater resource that they have been
allocated. This reflects Jasanoff’s argument (2004b) that “when the world is in disarray, redefining
identities is a way of putting things back in familiar places” (p. 39).
With the construction of this new identity, the farmers are able to deflect any criticism regarding the
effects of the water abstraction on the environment back towards ECan. The water users can now
prove that they are operating within their permitted limits, and in some cases that the rates of
abstraction have been overestimated by ECan in the past, in the absence of such data. Using the
metering data as proof that they as individuals are behaving appropriately, the farmers have framed
the issues associated with the freshwater resources in the RSGAZ (over-allocation and reduced flows
in lowland streams) as a product of governance and management of the resources at the regional or
catchment scale, rather than the accumulative effect of many poorly managed individual
abstractions at the farm scale.
As stated by Reardon (2001), “natural and social order cannot be created de novo. Rather, these
orders are the products of long historical processes that embed past contestations and settlements”
(p. 359). The exact identity constructed for the farmers using the metering data varies between
67
individuals and is built on the basis of their past experiences. For the dairy farmers abstracting water
from deep wells on the upper plains, their experience of abstracting water has always indicated that
there is plenty of it as they have never suffered any problems with pumping (respondents 1(Df,D),
6(Df,D), 3(Df,D), 4(Df+Af,D)). Without any physical evidence that the resources are under stress, they
are reluctant to accept ECan’s classification of the catchment as an over-allocated red zone.
In contrast, the arable farmers on the lower plains have seen the reduced flows in the lowland
streams, and some also report that there is a noticeable drop in groundwater pressure on the lower
plains when the irrigation season starts. They therefore agree with the red zoning of the catchment.
However, while they acknowledge that their irrigation must be a contributing factor, they feel that
the responsibility for the reduced flows in the lowland streams has been disproportionately placed
on them due to their proximity to the streams themselves. Their irrigation rates have not increased
significantly since before the streams began suffering from low flows, and they have therefore
concluded that the issue is a result of the increased abstraction from the upper plains. Despite these
differences in experience, both the arable and dairy farmers have had similar identities constructed
as responsible water users, using the new proof provided by the Regulations. In doing this, the
Regulations have enabled the existing order to be reconfigured to reflect this identity: validating the
water users’ experiences of the water resource through the metering data.
The relationship between ECan and the water users is conventionally hierarchical, with ECan as the
regulatory authority holding power over the water users. The Regulations have reinforced the power
of ECan by allowing a greater level of scrutiny of water users and their water abstraction. Thus the
filtering capacity of the Regulations has constructed identities for water users as being acceptable
and behaving within consented limits (and therefore compliant), or not. The ability provided by the
Regulations to differentiate between the compliant and non-compliant water users means that ECan
can more easily enforce sanctions against those who are non-compliant than they have been able to
in the past. During the research, water users did indeed express that a noticeable increase in
enforcement activity by ECan had occurred since the introduction of the Regulations. However, the
Regulations have also enabled the empowerment of water users, by providing them with the proof
they need to demonstrate that they are operating within the limits that have been deemed
acceptable by ECan. In using the Regulations to construct the identity of farmers as responsible and
rule-following, they have distinguished themselves from what they perceive to be a minority of
farmers who do not adhere to the rules, and focused the attention of the debate on the actions of
ECan.
The data produced as a result of the Regulations was always intended to be used to improve
understanding of freshwater resources. However, the use of the data as proof by water users and the
68
reconfiguring of their identity that has resulted is an unforeseen and unintended consequence of the
Regulations. Busch (2011) argues that standardised differentiation means that “there are
innumerable branches, partial orderings, and social groupings” (p. 198). However, in constructing
identities and differentiating between the acceptable and the not, the Regulations are not only
ordering social groups, but are also co-producing order in the natural world. Based on their past
experiences, the Regulations have enabled the farmers to frame the freshwater resources as a
collection of well managed parts (allocations), reflecting their elevation in the social order as
responsible water users. The Regulations have co-produced natural and social order as the new
farmer identity frames the problems associated with freshwater management in the RSGAZ as a
product of poor management at the catchment or regional scale, rather than the individual farm
scale. Therefore, while the Regulations have enabled ECan to increase the scrutiny of the water
users’ behaviour, the quantification of abstracted water may also increase the scrutiny of past and
future planning decisions made by ECan with regard to freshwater management.
Stone (1997) argues that quantification is commonly used to define policy problems and the numbers
that result are commonly utilised to justify a need for, and dictate the direction of change. With the
contention that has characterised freshwater management in Canterbury, the measurement of water
abstraction embodied within the Regulations is seen by many of the research participants as
essential to improving the management of this resource. With the Regulations enabling the
construction of identities for the farmers as responsible water users and thereby framing the
resource problems as a product of poor management of the resource at a regional scale, the
empowerment of farmers might enable them to determine the future direction of policy changes
towards protecting their access to the water. An unintended consequence of the Regulations that
has the potential to arise in the future is the new identity of the farmers leading to a reduction in the
credibility of ECan as past decisions in the management of the RSGAZ are scrutinised.
6.2.2 Making representations and discourses through standards
Busch (2011) argues that standards always incorporate a metaphor or simile in that they are
intended to provide a measured comparison. As with numbers, standards can assist in providing a
description of the world, but they are never absolute and are open to interpretation (Porter, 1996;
Stone, 1997). Standards and standards of quantification in particular, therefore offer one way
through which representations of the world are constructed. Furthermore, it is also common for a
specific language to evolve to support representations. As predicted by Jasanoff (2004a) and others
(Reardon, 2001; Swedlow, 2011), the representations and discourse that the Regulations support,
are sites of co-production of social and natural order. They (the representations and discourse)
reflect the assumptions about the world that have been embedded within the Regulations.
69
The introduction of the Regulations is an attempt to better understand freshwater resources,
through the quantification of the water that is abstracted from these resources. Although on its own
the metering data will not enable a full understanding of the resource, it is intended that it will
contribute to a range of other direct measures (such as the static groundwater level, flows in springfed streams, bore hole logs, etc.), as inputs into predictive models. The subterranean nature of
groundwater means that quantifying the resource and the effects on the environment from
abstraction directly is impossible. These models therefore offer a representation of the resource as
measurable and therefore controllable, in the absence of being able to physically measure it directly.
While the data from the Regulations is not yet being used in this manner, this results show that it is
intended to be, and that there is wide support for this to occur. Thus, the co-production of this
‘quantified resource’ representation through the implementation of the Regulations will act to
stabilise what we know about the resource, and how we know it.
During the research the majority of the participants spoke of the inability “to manage what we do
not measure”. Although the Regulations are a measurement tool that applies to both people and
abstracted water, this phrase was only ever used in reference to the water, despite water users
stating that they see the Regulations primarily as a compliance tool (a measure of people) rather
than as a tool for management and planning. This discourse of quantification as necessary in order
for management to be effective demonstrates how entrenched the ‘modelled’ representations of
groundwater resources is in Canterbury. However, although the model representation is entrenched,
according to Weber et al. (2011) there has been a long running conflict over the merits of two
conflicting models: the Aqualinc model versus ECan’s so called bathtub model. The emphasis on the
need for more measurement reflects this conflict, the dissatisfaction that exists with the modelling
that has been done to date, and the hope that more information might resolve this conflict. During
the research, many of the participants expressed disbelief that any model could be adequate without
any accurate data on how much water is actually abstracted. This reflects the findings of the previous
work completed in the Selwyn catchment by Weber et al. (2011) where it was found that “getting the
science right” (p. 51) was thought to be the best way to resolve the conflict and move forward. As
respondent 1(Df,D) said during an interview, it is hoped that the Regulations will firm up the science
of the models sufficiently so that “we’re not arguing the facts, but just arguing the effects”.
In this sense, the Regulations are contributing to the reinforcement of the existing ordering and the
perpetuation of a quantitative, ‘rule-by-numbers’ discourse by specifying a standardised set of rules
for the quantification of abstracted water, and thereby emphasising the perceived necessity for
measurement as the best means for defining reality (Busch, 2011; Porter, 1996; Stone, 1997). These
rules embody assumptions about the reality that they are intended to help define. For example, the
Regulations assume that the quantification of water abstraction is useful in improving the
70
understanding of patterns of water use and the impacts of this use on the environment. However, as
described in the results, this assumption works well for groundwater abstractions (such as those
used by the research participants) where the volume of water abstracted is directly equivalent to the
water then used in irrigation. In these cases, the pumps driving the abstraction also drive the
irrigation systems. Whereas for users of surface water or those connected to irrigation schemes
which commonly utilise water storage to increase reliability, the measure of water abstracted does
not necessarily indicate where or when the water is then used. The assumption about the value of
the data embodied within the Regulations therefore fails to adequately account for the variety and
complexity of situations that exists in the real world. Variation in the value and usefulness of the data
is therefore a consequence of using a single set of standard rules to cover a broad range of contexts.
For the Regulations to be implemented nationally, they were necessarily created to be broad and
universal. However, this universality has constrained the range of contexts to which they easily apply.
Thus the representation created through the metering of surface water takes will differ from that
constructed for the groundwater takes. As surface water abstractions have not been covered in this
research, direct conclusions cannot be drawn about how these differing representations affect the
co-production of natural and social orders. However, it is expected that these differences between
surface and groundwater abstractions may have consequences for the construction of the
representation of the resource at a regional scale through future modelling endeavours.
The reliance on numbers in the representation of the freshwater resource dictates that they and the
effects of their use on the wider environment can only be truly understood and managed in
accordance with the representation constructed by the technical experts and their models. Even
when the expert representation is in conflict with the understanding of the water users (as with the
arable farmers whose experience indicates that their impacts have been overstated in past
representations), they still see the models as essential to managing freshwater resources effectively.
Rather than the water users outright rejecting the role of experts, the Regulations and the metering
data are instead seen as a way of adjusting the existing representation to better reflect the water
users’ reality. The Regulations offer an accurate measure of how much water is actually abstracted,
which will replace the assumed values that have been used in the past. However, in doing this, the
Regulations act to reinforce and stabilise the world as it is represented through expert knowledge.
The use of the metering data derived from the Regulations in this way demonstrates that the
“physical characteristics of nature are contingent upon social practices: they are not fixed” (Castree,
2001, p. 13). Just as the representation of nature can evolve over time to reflect changes in social
practices of quantification (the introduction of water metering for example), interpretations of the
products of quantification also change to reflect the power relationships amongst the social actors.
For instance, as described in the results, the metering data is a double edged sword for low water
71
users: it proves that they use less water than has been assumed, but also makes this allocated but
unused water more visible. When speaking of the ability to prove their low water use, the discourse
of the farmers spoke of being good guardians of the resource, with their unused allocations
protected from use by anyone else and thus benefitting the environment. However, this discourse
changes significantly under the threat that the metering data will be used as justification to reduce
allocation limits. The unused water is no longer an environmental contribution, but is described in
terms more typically associated with monetary value, such as insurance and future potential
development.
These changes in discourse reflect the changes in the power between ECan and water users that the
Regulations introduce. As Castree and MacMillan (2001) argue, “the ability to define nature’s ‘truths’
or to alter it physically can, it is argued, help secure relations of cultural and economic dominance in
society” (p. 209). In enabling the water users to prove that they are low water users, the Regulations
empowers water users against ECan, as they are also able to prove that the assumptions made by the
latter have been wrong in the past. Rather than being the cause of reduced stream flows as
described in the past, the arable farmers can prove that they actually use much less water than has
been assumed. On this basis, the Regulations have led to a reconfiguration of the existing
representation: from cause of the problem to part of the solution.
To date ECan has not made any indication that it intends to make reductions to allocated limits
however, the quantification of the Regulations and the resulting increase in visibility of unused water
has created a situation where farmers feel vulnerable. During the research, the farmers in this
situation were the lowland arable farmers, the same group that the research found to be in
agreement with ECan as to the over-allocation of the resource, and who also faced the greatest
restrictions on their activities during the Rakaia-Selwyn consent review. These past experiences have
been compounded by the highlighting of unused water via the Regulations, resulting in farmers
making assumptions about the ends to which the data will be used by ECan in the future. Reducing
allocation limits in the manner that water users are predicting would be an example of ECan
exercising its power as the regulatory authority over the water users by imposing sanctions. In
response to this potential power shift, the farmers’ discourse changes to emphasise the personal
hardship that would result from this action should it be taken. Some farmers even take this to the
extreme, threatening to increase water abstraction rates in order to protect their access to it. The
perverse outcome of increased water use therefore has the potential become an unintended
consequence of the Regulations. This is likely to have implications for ECan as they attempt to
address the over-allocation in the RSGAZ, and other red-zoned catchments across the region in the
future.
72
This shows that a tension exists between the representations, discourses, and identities that have
been constructed with the introduction of the Regulations. Bowker and Star (2000) describe similar
tension between representations, identities and discourses in their study of the Nursing
Interventions Classification (NIC) system. In this study they identify that the NIC as it sought to define
the role of nursing through categorisation of the activities that they perform. As with the farmers in
the research, the new standard (the NIC) increased the visibility of nurses’ roles in medical care, a
function that was welcomed as a way to improve recognition of their work. But they also recognised
that the politics of the new classification system involved “walking a tightrope between increased
visibility and increased surveillance” (Bowker & Star, 2000, p. 29). As a result, the nurses were
observed to adopt behaviours that both increased the degree of standardisation within the new
classification system, whilst also attempting to offset the scheme to prevent the categories from
dictating their role to the point where they lose all discretion (Bowker & Star, 2000; Kaljonen, 2006).
Kaljonen (2006) states that while there is tension between welcoming an increase in visibility whilst
trying to minimise the effects of surveillance, the two are not in opposition but exist as a duality. This
tension is a product of co-production as the way that the nature is constructed through identities,
discourses and representations reflects the construction also taking place within the social system.
Thus, the tension arises between the allocated and unused water as being revealed to be protected
from other users for the benefit of the environment versus a resource being hoarded for later
economic gains, and the water users as protectors of the environment versus potential exploiters.
These divergent identities for water users and their allocated water therefore reflect changes in the
distribution of power across the socio-cultural landscape, with the construction of the latter identity
(hoarder for economic gain) only arising with the perceived threat that ECan will exert its
institutional power over water users through sanctions.
The representations and discourses that are used to define the freshwater resources in the RSGAZ
are sites of co-production. With groundwater resources unable to be measured directly, the
dominant representation of the nature of the resource and the effects of abstraction on it is that
defined by technical experts through the use of predictive models. This representation of nature is
well entrenched within the order of freshwater management in Canterbury and during the research
it became apparent that all parties (water users, ECan and industry) see the Regulations as a way to
strengthen these existing quantitative representations, by assisting to remove sources of uncertainty
and contention. As Stone (1997) argues, numbers are frequently used to construct representations
that suit the desired direction of change in policy and as Porter (1996) argues, quantitative rules have
a “remarkable if perverse ability to remake [the] world” (p. 50). Thus the discourses used in
discussing changes to the existing representation reflect the relationships of power that exist
between the social actors, and how they then portray the environment. While the intended
73
consequence of the Regulations is to improve freshwater management by understanding the
resource better, unintended consequences (such as an increase in water use) may also arise due to
assumptions held about the Regulations, what their data will reveal, the tension between the
constructions, and the actions that these might enable in the future.
6.2.3 Making institutions through standards
The Regulations have been introduced into a setting already containing organisational institutions.
All three of the stakeholder groups that participated in the research belong to an institution: ECan as
a regulatory authority, the water user groups to which the water users belonged, and the company
and the membership to Irrigation New Zealand’s Blue Tick accreditation scheme for the industry
professionals. The introduction of the Regulations has undoubtedly altered these institutions. For
example, the establishment of the water metering team and the new powers granted to the
consents compliance officers are changes that have occurred within ECan. The empowerment of
water users individually with their data as proof is likely to be reciprocated by a similar
empowerment of the water user groups as they represent the water users collectively. Industry
operators also report that the mandatory monitoring of consents has provided them with a new
source of work. However, providing a detailed analysis of these institutional changes is considered
impracticable as the interviews conducted during the research did not explore these changes in great
depth, focusing primarily on the experiences and opinions of the participants as individuals.
Although the organisational institutions are considered outside of the scope of this study, the
Regulations also represent an institution of practice by defining a set of rules that must be followed.
In doing this they facilitate and constrain the behaviours of the actors involved. The results of the
research indicate that the degree to which this facilitating and constraining action occurs for the
water users is dependent on the type of farming and the sophistication of their irrigation system. The
arable farmers’ irrigation as a supplementary activity, are typically well within their consented limits.
With little fear that they will breach their consent conditions under normal circumstances, the
consequences of the introduction of the Regulations on their farming practices has been minimal.
The Regulations neither facilitate nor constrain the arable farmers’ existing behaviours in the short
term (however as described, there is concern about how the data will be used in the long term),
beyond the mandatory requirement of installing the metering equipment. Furthermore, the lack of
sophistication of their irrigation systems requires much hands-on input in the irrigation process, by
moving irrigators manually for instance. The in-depth experience of the farming process that this
contributes to makes the quantification of abstraction redundant to an extent, as the farmer is
directly aware of how much water is being applied to the land. In contrast, the results indicated that
dairy farmers tend to use more sophisticated infrastructure (large automated centre pivot or
74
travelling irrigators) and operate their irrigation systems much closer to their consented limits. With
this type of system, the monitoring offered by the Regulations facilitates the water users to manage
their water use within their limits more effectively, actively avoiding non-compliances. Thus, the
dairy farmers are more likely to be using the Regulations as a farm management tool, as promoted
by ECan, ensuring that they do not over-abstract.
This example demonstrates that the order of nature and society is always conditional on and
constructed on the basis of past experiences. Thus, the institution of the Regulations is interpreted
differently by different users based on their individual contexts. While ECan promoted the water
metering as a farm management tool, this intended consequence of the Regulations has only really
arisen within the dairy sector where the rule-bound nature of the new standard better reflects the
relatively high-tech and therefore necessarily highly standardised irrigation infrastructure used. In
this sense, both the farmer’s behaviour and his abstraction of the water are already operating within
predetermined constraints. In fact, as became apparent during the research, in many cases the
irrigation technology has been designed to operate within clearly defined boundaries and with little
flexibility to cope with changes such as a rise in groundwater level (as described in section 5.4.3). The
Regulations have therefore not contributed to any additional constraints of the system, but have
instead reinforced the facility to use technology to manage water use from a distance. In contrast,
the more hands-on farming approach of the arable farmers due to their less standardised irrigation
technology means that they have direct experience of the impact of their irrigation activities on the
land. Furthermore, with heavy soils that are prone to water logging the arable farmers can easily tell
through this experience whether they are using water effectively or not.
The Regulations have an assumption embodied within them that water abstraction and use can only
be understood regarding what is acceptable and efficient use through quantifying it. However,
despite the oft repeated “we cannot manage what we do not measure”, the actions of the arable
farmers indicate that they are able to manage their water use effectively without measuring their
water abstraction, by using their own experiences of the interaction between their activities and the
outcome for their land. However, while the Regulations have not reconfigured natural and social
order for the arable farmers at their individual farm scale, they acknowledge that ECan (and to an
extent the dairy farmers reliant on technology) do not have the same capacity for “living one’s field”
(Kaljonen, 2006). Thus, the assumption of the Regulations (that measurement is necessary) is
considered to be true when considering water resources at the catchment or regional scale. As
described previously, the introduction of the Regulations has enabled water users to frame the issues
of the RSGAZ as a product of poor governance of the resource in aggregate. The construction of the
institution of the Regulations in the contexts of individual farms has therefore reconfigured nature as
an aggregate of parts, where it is necessary to measure the parts to understand the whole.
75
Meanwhile, it has also reconfigured the social by revealing through the identity of responsible water
users that ECan is unable to understand the resource through means other than measurement, as
farmers can.
6.3 The role of the Regulations in co-production
In the previous section, the results have been explored to reveal examples of where natural and
social order has been reconfigured by the introduction of the Regulations. Intended and unintended
consequences that have arisen as a result have also been described. The next sections will explore
how it is that the Regulations have co-produced natural and social order, with particular reference to
the common characteristics of standards including power and control, path dependence, and that
they never exist in isolation.
6.3.1 The Regulations as a filter type standard
As previously described in Section 3.3.2, the Regulations are a standard of the filter type in that they
provide a series of tests that must be passed in order to determine if the thing (object or person)
being tested is of an acceptable standard, and passes through the metaphorical filter material.
Standards of this type are common amongst environmental standards (Busch, 2011). However, the
results indicate that the Regulations are a filter standard in two ways, both stemming from their
purpose as a measure of compliance under the RMA: compliance with the Regulations themselves,
and compliance in terms of resource consent conditions.
Compliance with the Regulations
The first of these two ways, is that explicitly stated within the Regulations in relation to the
requirements (or tests) that must be met by the permit holder, beginning with a test to determine
whether the Regulations apply to a permit holder or not (reg 4 and 5). This is then followed by
further tests describing the requirements that a permit (resource consent) holder must meet in order
to fulfil his legal obligations under the Regulations (reg 6-8). These tests explicitly described within
the Regulations apply not only to the permit holder, but also to the technology the permit holder
employs. Reg 6(6) outlines specific requirements that a measuring device must meet in order for it to
pass the filter and comply. Failure of the permit holder (and the technology they engage) to comply
with these requirements means that they have not met the acceptable standard necessary to pass
the filter, and are liable to punitive measures under the RMA.
Compliance in this regard has been widely achieved with the majority of water users accepting that
they must meet the tests as set out within the Regulations. As described by respondent 12(ECan), the
Regulations offer a set of minimum requirements necessary for effective water metering. As such
the threshold for passing this filter standard is relatively low and readily achievable. Provided a
76
consent holder is willing and has the financial means to purchase suitable technology, there is little
to prevent them from complying with the Regulations. This is reflected in the wide uptake of
metering within the prescribed deadlines, with only a small minority (<20% of takes >20 litres/second
in the RSGAZ, (respondents 11(ECan), 13(ECan))) who remain non-compliant with the direct
requirements of the Regulations. Those who have failed to comply with these requirements are
those who have refused to engage in the process at all, rather than a failure to comply with just some
aspect of it. The Regulations have therefore been successful in achieving water metering across the
Canterbury region within a relatively short time frame.
The Regulations and a broader sense of compliance
The second and more implicit sense that the filter of the Regulations acts is through the relationship
between the Regulations and resource consent conditions. Although no overt purpose or aim is
stated within the Regulations, given that they sit within the legal framework of the RMA and apply to
those who hold resource consents, the majority of the farmers spoken to view the Regulations
foremost in terms of compliance with resource consent conditions. This is despite the efforts of ECan
to promote metering as a farm management tool (Environment Canterbury, 2013). The Regulations,
and more specifically, the records of water taken that they require be kept, are instead viewed as an
opportunity by consent holders to prove that they comply not only with the Regulations themselves,
but also with the conditions of their individual resource consents. Despite the Regulations making no
direct reference to how the water take records relate to resource consent conditions, the farmers
view the Regulations primarily in terms of a second filter: do I comply with my resource consent
conditions or not?
Filtration as a mode of co-production
As a filter standard, the Regulations are designed to identify those that are acceptable (pass through
the metaphorical filter material) from those that are not. However as Porter (1996) and Busch (2000)
argue, it is impossible to separate standards and acts of quantification for things from those for
people and vice versa, a process that Busch (2011) refers to as symmetry. It is this inability to
separate standards for people from those for things that makes standards a mode of co-production.
In cases where a standard applies to an object, the need for the object to be subject to and tested
against a standard is the result of the social needs of people, and furthermore, any testing must be
carried out by people. Likewise, any standard for people will require some form of object to assist in
the testing process: “to the extent that we create standards for things, we implicitly create standards
for humans. Similarly, we cannot create standards for humans without creating standards for things”
(Busch, 2011, p. 26). It is therefore unavoidable that in quantifying an aspect of the environment
(water abstracted) using standardised means, those abstracting the water will also be subject to
measurement against a standard.
77
The results indicate that the Regulations operate as a filter in two ways. The first explicit sense of a
filter is intended to enforce a standardised process for the consistent monitoring of water
abstraction. However, in light of the history of contention that has characterised freshwater
management in Canterbury, it is perhaps unsurprising that the Regulations are also viewed as a
means of proving their acceptability in terms of the second interpretation of the filter: a measure of
acceptability (compliance) with regard to resource consent conditions. The Regulations are therefore
providing a simultaneous measure of abstracted water and of water user behaviour, a feature Porter
(1996) states is common in standardised quantification practices where “adequate measurement
means disciplining people as well as instruments and processes, particularly when … there is
advantage to be gained in deception” (p. 38). Furthermore, Stone (1997) argues that evidence in the
form of numbers is considered valuable as it is assumed that “numbers will “prove” a connection
between some controllable human action and the problem” (p. 173) and thereby drive change. This
faith in numbers is demonstrated by the widely held belief that more monitoring is essential for
addressing the conflict and improving freshwater management in Canterbury (Land and Water
Forum, 2010; Weber et al., 2011).
Thus, as the Regulations provide a measure of both abstracted water and water user behaviour and
are intended to contribute towards better managing freshwater resources, they will co-produce
natural and social order by defining what is acceptable and what is not. The availability of metering
data means that past assumptions about resource use and those using the resource, made in the
absence of this data will inevitably be scrutinised. As demonstrated in the previous sections, this has
resulted in the construction of new or altered identities, institutions, representations and discourses.
The following sections describe how common characteristics of standards have enabled the
Regulations to co-produce natural and social order in this way.
6.3.2 The Regulations as a mode of power and control
As previously explained, standards are intended to create order in a messy world (Busch, 2011).
Standards are therefore expressions of power through which we amplify by facilitating some actions,
whilst constraining others. They are therefore always implemented from an authoritative position.
Furthermore, standards are commonly used to ensure that quality is maintained, so that the subject
of the standard can be treated as standing reserve, ready to be drawn upon as needed, safe in the
knowledge that it will perform in a predictable way. However, as Busch (2011) argues, “quality is
about control and control of things often morphs into control of people” (p. 234), a product of the
aforementioned symmetry of standards. This control is typically exerted through sanctions that aim
to either promote (facilitate) or discourage (constrain) particular activities. Sanctions range from soft,
voluntary nudges towards a particular behaviour (for example earning recognition from a respected
78
accreditation scheme) through to strong incentives, such as the threat of punitive measures
enforceable by law (as with the Regulations). However, even when sanctions within them are of the
softer kind, standards often act to impose order, as the thing (or person) that is being standardised
may have little choice in the matter (Busch, 2000). For instance, the industry professionals in
Canterbury are not required by the Regulations to be a part of Irrigation New Zealand’s Blue Tick
accreditation scheme. However, because ECan promotes the use of accredited professionals in
Canterbury as a means of quality assurance, it is unlikely that water users will engage with
unaccredited professionals.
The power and control that can be expressed through a standard is therefore one of the ways that
natural and social order become reconfigured with the introduction of a new standard. This research
indicates that the introduction of the Regulations has altered the positions of power held by ECan,
water users, and technology all to more or lesser degrees. As described in the following sections, the
empowerment and disempowerment of these actors has contributed to co-production and the
resulting reconfiguration of the relationships that underpin freshwater management in Canterbury.
Power and ECan
As the regulatory authority in charge of managing freshwater resources and issuing resource
consents to use them, ECan already holds a position of power over consent holders. Under the legal
framework of the RMA, ECan has the right to impose sanctions on water users, from denying a water
user a new consent, imposing conditions of use within permits, through to issuing punishment to
those caught in breach of their consent conditions. The fact that the Regulations have been
introduced within the existing framework of the RMA means that all consent holders over the five
litres/second threshold must legally meet the requirements or face potentially serious consequences.
Consent holders therefore have no choice but to meet the requirements of the Regulations if they
wish to continue to abstract water. It is common for filter standards such as the Regulations to be
mandatory with the weight of the law behind them (Busch, 2011). Although ECan was already in this
position of power in relation to the water users prior to the introduction of the Regulations, the fact
that the Regulations are compulsory means that water users are largely powerless to act in any way
but in accordance with them. To not do so means invoking ECan’s sanctioning power and facing
seriously detrimental consequences such as prosecution. The introduction of the Regulations
therefore did not create this relationship of power, but the results show that it has been
strengthened.
For instance, in addition to the mandatory nature of the Regulations, they have also enabled ECan to
scrutinise the activities of water users much more easily than they were able to in the past. Without
this monitoring data in the past, ECan had no option but to trust water users to behave in accordance
79
with their consent conditions. Despite ECan’s position of power, they were frequently unable to act
on it in the past due to the lack of information. The introduction of the Regulations has changed this
with mandatory daily monitoring of high accuracy for all water abstracted. Farmers spoken to over
the course of the research are aware of the significance of this increase in monitoring, stating that
they feel that their water use and they themselves are now subject to a much greater level of
scrutiny than has existed in the past. ECan no longer has to rely on trust and can now readily check
the monitoring data to see if consent conditions are being met. Whether or not the filter is passed
has therefore become much easier for ECan to determine. Both ECan and water users acknowledge
that due to the scale of water use (and the huge number of consents that exist) in Canterbury, it is
very unlikely that this high level of scrutiny will actually extend to every individual consent holder
due to limited resources within ECan. However, even if “it is not like big brother is watching over
them” (respondent 12(ECan)), the potential for scrutiny has still acted to strengthen ECan’s position
of power, as shown by the awareness of the farmers to it.
As noted by Busch (2011) and Stone (1997), standards and the need to measure frequently arise in
situations of conflict and/or where change is desired. The outcomes of standards and measurement
therefore frequently inform the direction that this change will take. As Stone (1997) states,
“measurers … have power over the fate of the measured, since measuring is done to help decide on
policy actions” (p. 182). The scrutiny that farmers now feel as a result of the Regulations is a product
of this power. Furthermore, the concern felt by farmers around how the monitoring data is to be
used in the future (as justification for reducing allocation limits for example) indicates that they are
vulnerable to the effects of this power.
As shown in the results, the increase in scrutiny has also raised concerns that there will be a
corresponding increase in the enforcement (sanctioning) activities by ECan. Since the introduction of
the Regulations, participants in the research have noticed an increase in the number of warnings
being issued for minor compliance issues. In the past, these would likely have gone undetected, but
with the introduction of monitoring they have become more visible. A filter standard such as the
Regulations is intended to sort the acceptable from the unacceptable, a characteristic that lends
itself well to the enforcement of compliance, whereby resource consent conditions are either met
(acceptable) or not (unacceptable). The Regulations have therefore constructed compliant and noncompliant identities for the water users. ECan’s compliance officials already have a reputation for
interpreting the world in a very ‘black and white’ manner (“compliance officers don’t do grey”
(respondents 6(Df,D), 14(ISP), 11(ECan)) and farmers worry that the Regulations and these new
identities will lead to a reduction in the use of personal judgement in dealing with issues of
compliance. While such an approach could be considered fairer by treating all consent holders
equally through the sanctions they face, as Wynne (1988) describes, such a simplified view of the
80
world “denies access to and appreciation of the complex, open-ended and incompletely ruledetermined technical-social constitution of technologies” (p. 160). While a water meter may indicate
that a non-compliance has occurred, it does not necessarily explain why. To a technology such as a
water meter, an over-abstraction due to a farmer deliberately ignoring his limits looks the same as an
over-abstraction due to an unavoidable accident such as a burst pipe. Applying equal sanctions to
both cases risks being unfair for the victim of the accident.
Reducing the assessment of compliance against consent conditions to one where there is only two
categories; acceptable and not, without any capacity for human judgement to be applied will
disempower water users. It will fail to adequately accommodate the complexity that exists in
operating an irrigation system on a farm. This deficiency is noted by Busch (2011) when he states
that “quantification often assumes that the things quantified are in fact the (only) relevant factors”
(p. 145). The deployment of standards is therefore not without risk. While the Regulations empower
ECan further, they may also lead to a loss of authority and credibility over time if the organisation
fails to acknowledge the limits of the compliant and non-compliant identities constructed for water
users.
Power and water users
While the introduction of the Regulations has undoubtedly increased the power of ECan in relation
to water users as described above, it also provides the opportunity for the water users themselves to
become empowered. Despite the cost of implementing water metering in accordance with the tests
outlined in the Regulations, water users were largely in support of measuring water abstraction. They
saw it as an opportunity to prove to both ECan and the wider public that they are behaving within
their limits, and thus the Regulations have constructed an identity for the water users as good and
responsible water users.
The measurement with water meters produces tidy and indisputable numbers to demonstrate how
much water has been abstracted, and “to offer one of these numbers is by itself a gesture of
authority” (Stone, 1997, p. 177). The water users that participated in the research maintain that they
are well aware that they must operate within the rules and that they feel that they have all been
tarnished in the eyes of the public and ECan by a small minority of farmers who deliberately
disregard the rules and use water inefficiently. Just as ECan was limited in its ability to identify and
act on non-compliances in the past due to the lack of monitoring data, water users also had few
means to demonstrate that they were abstracting and using water in a responsible manner when
faced with such criticisms in the past. This lack of influence, especially given the highly contested
nature of freshwater management has led to the wide acceptance of water metering amongst the
81
farming community and explains the popularity of the idea of the water metering data as proof of
compliance with the rules.
The balance of power between ECan and water users is also affected by the presence of the industry
service providers, who play a crucial role in both the implementation and the on-going management
of the Regulations. Due to the limited resources within ECan, the organisation has had to rely on
industry to provide much of the technical expertise and support for water users in meeting the
requirements of the Regulations. However, unlike with the water users, ECan has no direct authority
over the industry players and instead must rely on standards being maintained by the industry itself
through Irrigation New Zealand’s Blue Tick programme, a third party certification scheme (Busch,
2011).
In contrast, the water users do have direct influence on the industry as paying clients and users of
their services. The relationship between the three parties has worked well to date in relation to
water metering, with industry even acting as a mediator between the other two parties in some
cases (respondents 14(ISP), 11(ECan)). However, if a major point of contention does arise between
ECan and water users in the future, it is likely that the industry will support the position of their
paying clients, becoming a useful ally to strengthen the position of water users. This can be seen in
the reluctance of respondent 14(ISP) to take on the task of auditing the metering data on behalf of
ECan, unless ECan itself pays for it. As this task is unrelated to the requirements of the Regulations in
terms of monitoring compliance, respondent 14(ISP) believes that it is unfair to push the cost of such
work back onto the water users. Within Canterbury there is already an extensive history of water
users employing the industry to support its position, particularly during regional council and
environment court hearings (Gunningham, 2008). Indeed, many of the consent holders involved in
the Rakaia-Selwyn consent review were represented at the hearing by industry professionals
(Canterbury Regional Council, 2010).
Although at first glance it would appear that the Regulations act to embolden the pre-existing power
of ECan at the expense of the water users, this is not strictly the case. The access to the monitoring
data is also empowering for the water users as they can now prove that they are operating in the
acceptable category of the filter standard. This is particularly important for the low water users, as
they now have the opportunity to prove not only that their behaviour is acceptable, but also that the
past assumptions about their behaviour and its effects are wrong. Through the professional
relationship that exists between water users and the industry, water users also have an important
ally that will increase their power should a major disagreement arise with ECan.
82
Power and technology
As previously mentioned, it is impossible to separate standards for people from standards for things
(Busch, 2000, 2011; Porter, 1996). In assessing the relationships of power that exist within the
framework of the Regulations, it is important to include the technology itself, and not just the human
actors.
In installing a water meter to measure the amount of water that is abstracted, the technology is
automatically granted an element of power as it is replacing the need for a human to do the task.
Furthermore, it is assumed that the technology will not only be able to replace a human, but will be
able to perform the task better, as it removes the risk of erratic behaviour that accompanies humans
(Busch, 2000; Latour, 1992). Indeed, the Regulations attempt to minimise the influence of people on
the technology as much as possible, through requiring that the metering equipment is both sealed
and tamperproof (reg 6(6)(d)). In using technology in this way, The Regulations and the regulatory
authority assume that the numbers produced will be objective and free of any pre-determined
agenda, and will therefore be honest (Wynne, 1988). The Regulations embody what Porter (1995)
calls “mechanical objectivity”, where the presumed reduction of subjectivity is an attempt to create
legitimacy and validity within the process of quantifying abstracted water.
In delegating the responsibility for quantifying water abstraction to technology, people hope to
produce objective numbers that can then be used to support a policy position (Stone, 1997). The
technology is therefore not only granted power as the provider of the numbers, but it will also
strengthen the power of those who use it, as was seen with the introduction of the TCC technology in
Victoria. The highly accurate Flumegate™ technology was also fully automated leaving the farmers
with limited capacity to interact with and adapt the technology to meet their needs (Collett, 2010).
However, when debate arose with regard to the water that was unable to be accounted for through
the TCC system (losses due to leakage etc.), the water managers reacted by increasing the scrutiny of
water user behaviour. By exercising power over the water users, the water managers attempted to
protect the objectivity of the measured water and the authority of the TCC system. Given the history
of conflict around freshwater management to date, it is considered likely that similar consequences
may develop in the future in Canterbury, should the legitimacy of the data be questioned.
Whereas the farmers in Victoria had no choice but to adopt the TCC technology, the farmers of
Canterbury have had more flexibility in the technology that they can use under the Regulations. Yet,
the impacts of standards are distributed unevenly across the sociocultural landscape and it is
common for winners and losers to emerge as a result of the introduction of a new standard (Busch,
2000, 2011; Star & Lampland, 2009). For instance, the Regulations have required water users to
invest in upgrading their existing infrastructure to enable the installation of the necessary measuring
83
technologies. For many farmers, particularly those with multiple abstraction points or with older
irrigation infrastructure, this cost is significant, frequently in the tens of thousands of dollars. It is
therefore perhaps unsurprising that they have sought to minimise the impact of the introduction of
the Regulations on themselves and their farms by embracing technology. For instance, many farmers
have connected to telemetry networks regardless of there being no regulatory requirement to do so.
For those farmers that have no reason to monitor their water abstraction closely (such as the arable
farmers that operate well within their limits), being connected to a telemetry network means that
they can be sure that they are meeting the requirements of the Regulations, with minimal input from
themselves in terms of time and effort. Paying a little more in capital to employ better technology
therefore reduces the impact of the standard, as the farmer can ignore it for the majority of the time.
The farmers are happy to delegate their responsibility for meeting the requirements of the
Regulations to a complex network of non-human machines. They trust that they can ignore the
Regulations while focussing on other tasks, safe in the knowledge that they will be notified by email
or text message via the telemetry system should any issues arise.
However, the downside of water users delegating too much responsibility to the technology is that it
is prone to failure, particularly when the water users do not fully understand how the technology
works and the requirements of the Regulations, and thereby unintentionally compromise it. During
the research a number of cases of this were described including farmers switching the mains power
off at the end of the irrigation season, not realising that this will stop the meter from performing its
function, and that the Regulations require continual readings even when no water is taken. As Latour
(1992) describes, for technology to successfully measure water in accordance with the Regulations, it
presupposes that the user of the technology will behave in a particular way, by not turning the power
off for example. Failing to acknowledge these embedded assumptions has therefore led to
unintended consequences during the implementation of the Regulations, as the unpredictable
behaviour of people has failed to match the predictable behaviour of the technology.
The power of standards in co-production
As described in the preceding sections, the introduction of the Regulations has resulted in an
empowerment of ECan, water users and technology. Jasanoff (2004b) argues that “what we know
about the world is intimately linked to our sense of what we can do about it, as well as the felt
legitimacy of specific actors, instruments and courses of action” (p. 14). It is the distribution of power
that determines this sense of what one can do in the world to alter it. Thus, as standards such as the
Regulations facilitate and constrain the possible actions that can be taken, it is the distribution of
power that gives constructed identities, representations, discourses and institutions authority. Such
authority and legitimacy are essential in situations where tension exists between multiple and
sometimes divergent constructions of the world. For instance, it is the threat of ECan expressing its
84
sanctioning power over water users by reducing their allocations that reconfigures the identity of
water users from one of environmental protectors to that of protecting access to the resource.
Similarly, the power that is granted to technologies such as water meters, data loggers, and
telemetry through the Regulations gives the metering data produced as a result its perceived
legitimacy, by attempting to remove the potentially erratic behaviour of people from the process.
Although this process is flawed as people can never be completely removed as they are always
required to deploy technology, as can be seen with the farmers unintentionally affecting their water
measurement by turning off the power in the off season.
However, power can be a double edged sword and the same thing that may strengthen one position
can also be manipulated to weaken it. It is this ability to simultaneously strengthen and weaken a
position that enables standards to reconfigure natural and social orders. Furthermore, the
deployment of standards is not without risk. Any shift in the distribution of power across the sociocultural landscape as a result of a new standard may act to cast doubt upon the authority and
credibility of actors as well as their past actions. For instance, the empowerment of water users and
their new identity as good and responsible water users created by the Regulations has enabled the
water users to reframe the issues of the RSGAZ as a product of a poorly managed whole resource, as
opposed to an aggregate of many poorly managed allocations. In doing this, they are opening the
policy decisions made by ECan in the past to increased scrutiny.
6.3.3 Path dependence and the nested, layered and interlocking nature of
standards
The ability for standards to become well entrenched and difficult to reverse is called path
dependence (Busch, 2011). During the research it was found that the Regulations contribute to
existing path dependence as well as developing new ones. Furthermore, standards never exist in
isolation but are always supported by a complex network of other standards (Busch, 2011; Star &
Lampland, 2009). The existence of these networks contributes to and reinforces the path
dependence of the standard, as the more complex and entrenched the network, the more difficult it
is to reverse or abandon.
In this section, the Regulations are discussed in terms of the path dependence and the network of
standards that support them. These features of standards are then described in terms of how they
assist in the reconfiguration of natural and social order.
Path dependence and the Regulations
The reason that water metering was not widely implemented across the region of Canterbury prior
to the Regulations was due to the path dependence of previous standards in freshwater
85
management. As described in section 2.2.1, in the absence of a regional plan, ECan relied heavily on
the resource consenting process to manage freshwater resources, and it was not until 2004 that
water metering became a standard condition for all consents issued (Gunningham, 2011b).
Furthermore, due to the high capital costs associated with irrigation infrastructure, these consents
tended to be issued for long durations, often 35 years. To retrospectively apply new conditions (such
as the requirement to monitor water abstraction with a meter) to existing consents it was necessary
for ECan to either wait until the consent expired and an application made for its renewal, or
alternatively ECan could withdraw consents in order to review and reissue them. Both of these
options demonstrate the path dependence embedded within the consenting process, as they have
both been proved costly methods to alter the status quo. The long duration of Canterbury’s consents
has meant that to wait for them to expire is costly in terms of time as the turnover is so slow, and as
demonstrated by the Rakaia-Selwyn consent review (section 2.2.3), the review of consents proved to
be costly in terms of money, time and the strain placed on the relationship between water users and
ECan.
The Regulations were therefore crucial and offered a way for ECan to circumvent this existing path
dependence. As they are a national policy produced within the existing framework of the RMA, they
require water metering to be installed by all consent holders (over the five litres/second threshold),
regardless of the specific conditions of their individual consents. They therefore complement the
existing freshwater management framework making any reversal of original standards (such as
resource consents) unnecessary. However, in building on the existing processes, the Regulations are
further increasing the prevailing path dependence. As the implementation of the Regulations is
attached to resource consents, they further entrench the use and reliance on resource consents in
freshwater management within Canterbury.
In addition to contributing to existing path dependence, the Regulations will also develop their own
path dependence in Canterbury due to the large number of water consents in the region and the
scale of the task of implementation. With nearly 6,000 consents subject to the requirements of the
Regulations in the first stage alone, making any radical changes to the standard, or replacing it with
something new is likely to be very difficult. Water users, industry service providers, and ECan have all
invested both time and money in developing infrastructure (both physical and organisational) to
support the implementation and the on-going management of the Regulations. While changes that
are commensurable with this existing infrastructure may readily occur (the replacement of a meter
unit with an upgraded model for example), more drastic changes that do not allow for the existing
infrastructure would likely be met with a great deal of resistance.
86
Furthermore, it is likely that the data that is produced as a result of the water metering will
contribute to this path dependence over time. The majority of the research’s participants remarked
that the metering data will be most valuable once a large data set has been built up, containing many
seasons worth of metering data. At the farm scale it is thought that this will be useful for identifying
trends in water demand such as the variation in water demand with different crops and help drive
improvements in water use efficiency. It is also predicted that it will be useful for identifying issues
with irrigation infrastructure, such as declining performance of a pump indicating that maintenance
is required, or a sudden deviation from the normal abstraction rate revealing a leak in the system.
When used in aggregate at the catchment or region scale, the data over time will highlight trends in
water demand, showing where and when water is being abstracted, and hopefully assisting to better
understand how this water abstraction affects the resources as a whole.
Once a data set comprising many years of data is built up, and more specifically, once this data set is
embedded within the knowledge and processes that govern freshwater management, it will be very
difficult to introduce new ways of measuring or new formats for the data, without compromising the
ability to continue using the data already obtained. For instance, if a new rule requires soil moisture
levels to also be monitored and reported alongside the flow metering, will the new data for flow
metering be directly equivalent and comparable to the older data captured in isolation? Or will it
render the historical data set redundant? The path dependence of data is discussed in detail by
Bowker and Star (2000) who use the example of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) to
demonstrate the difficulties in creating standardised reporting processes for complex situations such
as human illnesses and cause of death. They describe how as medical knowledge has improved
throughout the history of the ICD, some of the original categories of classification are now no longer
appropriate as they are too vague. However, to remove these categories or to replace them with a
collection of more defined ones, while it will improve the ICD for the physician trying to attribute a
cause to a death, it will also create difficulties for statisticians and epidemiologists who are interested
in the progression of trends over a time. As many of the participants see value in the metering data
for distinguishing trends over time, major changes in data collection or form will likely create similar
issues for the Regulations in the future.
Nested, layered and interlocking network of standards that support the Regulations
A standard for people or objects never exists in isolation and is instead always supported by a
complex network of other standards, nested, layered and interlocked together (Busch, 2011; Star &
Lampland, 2009). This feature of standards contributes to their path dependence. At the very least,
every standard is supported by a standard of categorisation, to determine exactly which group of
people or objects the standard applies to. Standards are also commonly supported by a standard of
measurement, to determine whether the object or person in question does indeed meet the
87
standard. Further standards may be invoked less directly, such as one that applies to a specific piece
of equipment used in measurement, or a standardised method of certifying or validating that the
object or person has met the standard.
Other standards involved in the implementation of the Regulations
The interlocking nature of the Regulations and resource consents can be seen in Canterbury where
some water users have installed meters due to consent conditions (such as those involved in the
Rakaia-Selwyn consent review), and others due to the Regulations. These two processes exist in
parallel, despite those water users who have water metering as a requirement of their consent
conditions tending to have more stringent requirements than those required under the Regulations
(as described in section 2.2.3). In the consented cases, ECan has introduced additional requirements
to reflect the intention to use the metering as an input into predictive modelling and to inform
decision making. Due to the inability for ECan to use the resource consenting process to implement
water metering across the whole region (a result of the path dependence of the consenting process),
the Regulations have provided an opportunity to introduce set of minimum requirements region
wide. The more stringent requirements needed to use the data in predictive modelling can then be
added through attrition as existing consents expire and are renewed. In the interim, the data from
the Regulations will enable the groundwork for using the data most effectively to be established.
Regardless of whether water metering is required by the Regulations or through a resource consent
condition, the quantification of abstracted water by the use of a water meter will invoke a range of
nested standards that apply to the technologies used. The manufacturers of water meters specify the
environmental conditions and installation configurations under which their technology can be
expected to perform to a specific accuracy. Furthermore, the metering technology will have been
designed to work alongside the standards for other technologies, such as pipes (standard diameters,
materials etc.) and electricity distribution (standard phase, voltage etc.). It is these well embedded
nested standards that have made the implementation of the Regulations relatively straightforward
and free of significant challenges for water users, particularly those with modern irrigation
infrastructure that is already commensurable with the standards that the metering technology relies
on. In some cases, the entrenchment of these standards is so well established that farmers were able
to simply purchase and install the required water meter themselves largely forgoing the need for the
technical support of the industry service providers.
ECan was also able to use the existing network of standards to their advantage during the
implementation of water metering across the region. The Regulations require that all water meter
installations be verified as being suitably accurate, however, they do not specifically define
verification or what this should involve. Due to the huge number of installations that ECan was
88
having to deal with across Canterbury, actively visiting each meter in turn to physically test its
accuracy (with a second measuring device for example) is simply not possible. ECan has therefore
welcomed the ambiguity around verification within the Regulations, and instead of using a
measurement to verify meter accuracy they exploit the entrenched network of standards that
already exist for the metering technology. If the meter itself is suitable for the environment and the
installation of the meter is in accordance with the manufacturers’ specifications, it is assumed that it
will be performing adequately and meeting the accuracy requirements. Furthermore, rather than
checking every installation visually themselves, ECan relies on the certification of the industry
professionals through Irrigation New Zealand’s Blue Tick accreditation scheme to ensure that the
meters are installed to a high quality and in accordance with the right network of standards. Thus,
the existence of a stable network of other standards has reduced the number and magnitude of the
challenges associated with the implementation of the Regulations significantly.
The relationship between the standards of a network often becomes most apparent when a
technology fails to perform as expected (Busch, 2011). For example, during the research a situation
where the telemetry network stopped transmitting the data was described by some of the
participants. Initially there was no obvious reason why this failure had occurred as all the necessary
components appeared to be working as they should, though after a period of weeks it was eventually
discovered that the erection of a new cell phone tower in the vicinity of the telemetry base station
was interfering with the outgoing signal. Both the cell phone tower and the telemetry system utilise
the same transmission type and therefore their standards networks overlap. However, the operators
of the cell phone tower and the base station both failed to recognise the overlap, leading to the
problem with transmitting the water metering data. Although both systems are using the same
transmitting system and therefore some of the same standards, they had been set up assuming that
they were operating in isolation. Once the existence of the cell phone tower had been identified, it
was relatively straightforward for the base station signal to be adjusted to accommodate the other.
Future expansion of the standards network
The lack of accurate data around how much water is being abstracted in Canterbury has been
identified as a significant barrier to effectively managing freshwater resources (Gunningham, 2008;
MfE, 2013c; Weber et al., 2011). The introduction of the Regulations has therefore been welcomed
by many as a way of addressing this deficiency in information. Both farmers and ECan wish to see the
metering data used for more than just compliance monitoring. They believe that it can contribute to
improving the science of the freshwater resources as an input for predictive modelling activities.
However, the use of the metering data to inform science in this way requires the data to be of a
much higher quality than if it is to be used to monitor compliance. This has been the driver for ECan
89
in implementing more stringent metering requirements where it is in a position to do so through
resource consent conditions. The Regulations themselves contain very little detail about the form
that metering data should be reported as, and so prior to their implementation, ECan worked
alongside the industry to develop a simple standard data capture and reporting format to ensure
that there was consistency across the region. This standard for reporting water metering is suitable
for assessing the compliance of a water abstraction or even for assessing regional or catchment scale
trends in water abstraction. However, it is insufficient in depth of detail to be used as an input into
predictive modelling scenarios. Thus in order for the Regulations to move from a filter standard for
measuring compliance, to a tool for the informing of science (as is desired by both water users and
ECan), it is necessary to add another layer of complexity to the existing standards network, in the
form of a new data management standard.
While ECan has already begun work on this new standard, questions have arisen over who should
pay for the increased work associated with it. For the data to be used in predictive modelling it must
be audited so that any anomalies in the data can be attributed to a cause or removed. Given the
huge number of consents in Canterbury that are metered, this auditing is a resource intensive
process, however, neither ECan nor the industry currently has the capacity to perform the function.
As found during the research, the industry is reluctant to take on the task without ECan paying them
for the work, as they do not wish to push the cost of doing so back onto their clients, the water users.
The water users meanwhile, feel that they have already made significant financial contributions
during the implementation of the Regulations. Although they wish to see the data being used to
improve freshwater management, they see this next step as the responsibility of ECan.
This emerging conflict is typical of the negotiation that accompanies the development of all
standards. As standards are poorly distributed across the socio-cultural landscape, they create
winners and losers when introduced (Busch, 2000, 2011; Star & Lampland, 2009). It is therefore
unsurprising that where possible, the actors involved will seek to manipulate the final form of the
standard so that it is to their benefit, or at worst, does not create any negative impacts. As the
Regulations were implemented at a national scale as a mandatory requirement, the water users were
limited in their ability to participate in negotiations during their development and implementation.
They instead accepted the financial costs of the implementation of meters, in part because they
could see that there was a need for the metering data. Furthermore, the majority of farmers
benefitted from the metering directly through the ability to prove that they are operating within the
permitted limits, or in some cases improving their farm management (by ensuring they did not
exceed their limits for instance).
90
However, improving the science that informs freshwater management decisions will not have any
direct benefit to the farmers. Rather, any improvements to freshwater management in Canterbury
will benefit the whole region indirectly, not just farmers. Furthermore, if the science is used to justify
reducing the allocation limits of low water users as is their current concern, it will be to their
detriment. Due to the lack of direct benefit, potential for negative impacts and the financial
investment already made, farmers will likely negotiate to reduce the impact of any future standards
as they have done with the use of technology to date. During the research it was indicated that the
industry would support them in this as they feel their loyalty ultimately lies with the water users as
their paying clients, rather than with ECan. The evidence from the TCC project in Australia would
support this finding. In this case the farmers also had no choice but to install the new technology.
When the technology was implemented, the water managers did not negotiate an acceptable
standard method for quantifying water losses from the system. Thus, when it failed to deliver all the
promised benefits (with some farmers worse off than before the TCC project), the farmers began to
cast doubt on the whole programme by highlighting the inability for the new technology to
adequately account for water losses. Without that nested standard to account for losses, the farmers
had a target at which to vent their frustrations.
The role of path dependence and standards networks in co-production
Common characteristics of standards include that they always exist within a network of other
supporting standards. The complexity of this network contributes to a standard’s path dependence,
or the difficulty in altering or reversing a standard once it is established. These features of standards
contribute to the co-production of natural and social order because as Reardon (2001) argues
orderings are never constructed anew, but are instead built upon past configurations. Therefore,
constructed identities, representations, institutions and discourses formed as a result of a new
standard embody past conflicts and settlements.
As already described, the Regulations exist within a network of standards ranging from the technical
specifications that accompany the metering technologies, through to the resource consents that
determine how much water is allocated to each user. The presence of these other standards has
helped to shape the form of that the new constructions have taken. For example, quantification as a
means of knowing and understanding the world was already well entrenched within the
management of water resources of Canterbury before the Regulations were introduced, as can be
seen by the high value placed by both water users and ECan on representations produced by
predictive models. The discourse of “we cannot manage what we do not measure” that was
frequently used during the research in reference to freshwater resources reflects the dominance of
the modelled representation for water in Canterbury. These discourses and representations have not
been constructed solely on the basis of the introduction of the Regulations, but rather, they are
91
contributing to an existing and well established network of standards that support a ‘rule-bynumbers’ approach to governance of freshwater resources.
Furthermore, ECan is developing a data management protocol to further support the Regulations, to
assist in making them (and the data they produce) better suited to being used in predictive models.
This will further increase the path dependence of the Regulations and provide increased authority to
the discourse and representations as described above. Similarly, the introduction of the Regulations
under the legislative framework of the RMA and the fact that they apply to resource consent holders,
increases the path dependence of both of these tools of governance. In doing this it also strengthens
the institutional role of ECan in the management of freshwater resources in Canterbury as its power
over water users is granted through these regulatory standards.
Water management in Canterbury in the past has been characterised by conflict, part of which has
stemmed from the use of assumptions in the absence of measured data. As previously described, the
Regulations have constructed an identity for water users as good and responsible users of a sought
after resource. This new identity has not been constructed de novo but has been constructed from
the basis of these past conflicts instead, leading the farmers to welcome the opportunity to prove
that they operate within their consented limits. Thus the contestations that have occurred at other
points in the network of standards in the past (debate about the new resource consent conditions
imposed during the Rakaia-Selwyn consent review for instance) have contributed to the
reconfiguration of natural and social orders that have occurred through the introduction of the
Regulations.
The path dependence of the Regulations that has been created by the large number of consents in
Canterbury to which they apply, as well as the infrastructure that has been developed to enable their
implementation, mean that the orderings that has been co-produced as a result of the Regulations
will be similarly difficult to reverse in the future. As these orderings have been constructed on the
basis of past experiences, to completely reverse these constructions would require the past
contestations and settlements to be acknowledged, scrutinised and perhaps renegotiated. This can
be seen with the new farmer identity described above. With this identity, the farmers have reframed
the issues of water management in the RSGAZ from the aggregate of many poorly managed
allocations at the farm scale, to one stemming from the management of the resource as a whole at
the regional or catchment scale. The ability for this representation of the resource to shape the
direction of future policy changes in freshwater management will therefore be limited by the
capacity for the actors to recognise and respond to the meanings, identities and practices that others
have already assigned to the natural world in the past (Reardon, 2001). ECan for instance is unlikely
92
to readily accept this representation of the resource and its management as it will cast doubt on their
past decisions and actions.
Thus, as co-production always constructs identities, representations, institutions and discourses on
the basis of past constructions, the existence of a network of supporting standards and path
dependence within a standard will always contribute to how natural and social orders are
reconfigured when a new standard, such as the Regulations, is introduced.
6.3.4 Nested, layered and interlocking constructions
It is not only the standard that can be thought of as nested, layered and interlocking. The identities,
representations, institutions and discourses that have been constructed by the introduction of the
Regulations also exist not in isolation, but alongside each other. As with standards, this network
helps to stabilise the constructions. Although multiple and divergent constructions may arise (as with
the arable farmers’ identities), it is their relationship towards the other constructed identities,
representations, discourses and institutions that will determine whether they become stabilised.
Within this case study, the effect of this nesting can be seen. The institution of practice that is the
Regulations themselves has co-produced the construction of discourses, representations and
identities of natural and social orders through constraining and facilitating different actions. This
institution contains embedded assumptions around how the metering data will be of use, which has
contributed to the development of the “cannot manage what we do not measure” discourse, the
dominance of the modelled representation of the resource, and the water user identity as either
compliant or non-compliant. These constructions all reflect the hierarchical position of power that
ECan is in, as the organisational institution charged with implementing the Regulations and managing
the resources. However, within this relatively stable network there also exists an unintended, and
therefore less stable representations and identities that are in tension with those described. The
empowerment of the water users through use of the metering data as proof, has given rise to the
identity of water users as responsible users of their allocations and the representation of the
resource as poorly managed. Although, as these new identities and representations have the
capacity to reduce ECan’s entrenched credibility and authority as an institution, it will be difficult for
them to become stabilised within the network without the constructions that they are nested within
being scrutinised and renegotiated.
6.4 Standards and co-production in the context of freshwater management
in Canterbury
Freshwater management in Canterbury has a history of conflict as multiple users compete for the
increasingly scarce resources (Gunningham, 2008, 2011b; Jenkins, 2007; Lennox et al., 2011). One of
93
the key issues that have been identified in the region is the lack of accurate information around how
much of the total allocated water is actually being abstracted. Without this knowledge, many
stakeholders believe it is difficult to really understand the effects of the abstraction on the resources
themselves and the wider environment. The lack of monitoring of resource consents had therefore
been identified as a barrier to effectively managing the resources prior to the introduction of the
Regulations (Gunningham, 2011b; Weber et al., 2011).
However, despite the need for better monitoring being identified, the path dependence of the
existing management processes (through resource consenting) created a significant barrier to ECan
pursuing it at a regional scale. As a standard introduced nationally within the framework of the RMA,
the Regulations have enabled ECan to implement the much needed region-wide water metering. To
achieve this they have exploited the path dependence of the existing system, by making the new
monitoring requirements mandatory for (virtually) all consent holders. While this approach has
enabled ECan to avoid expensive alternatives for introducing metering, it has also reinforced the
already strong path dependence of the use of resource consents in the management of freshwater
resource management in Canterbury and New Zealand as a whole.
The RMA and the resource consenting process are considered to be part of the reason that
freshwater management has become such a contentious topic. The expense of the process, the
reliance on first-come-first-served allocation, and the inability to fully account for accumulative
effects of multiple takes are all considered to be major drawbacks to the system (Gunningham,
2011a; Lennox et al., 2011). Although the data that will be produced as a result of the introduction of
water metering is intended to improve freshwater management, the Regulations will also contribute
to the entrenchment of the consenting process in the allocation of freshwater. This could potentially
limit the ability to introduce new systems or tools for the management of freshwater resources in
Canterbury in the future.
As a result of the introduction of the Regulations, accurate and extensive data detailing the actual
volume of water abstracted will be available for essentially the first time. All of the participants in
this research expressed the need for this data to be used for more than just the monitoring of
compliance, stating that “we cannot manage what we do not measure”. They see the real value in
the data is not so much at the farm scale, but in aggregate at the catchment and regional scale. In the
absence of this data in the past, ECan has had to rely on assumptions about how much water is
abstracted. Given the uncertainty associated with these assumptions, many farmers believe that they
have greatly overstated the abstraction rates and thus the estimation of the resulting effects is one
of the major sources of the conflict between water users and ECan. Accurate measured data will
always have greater legitimacy than assumed figures for the same parameter.
94
However, the metering data from the Regulations, whilst it is accurate, there are many other sources
of uncertainty in the understanding of groundwater resources such as the total volume of the
resource and the degree to which different aquifers are connected. The Regulations are therefore
unlikely to offer a magic silver bullet to remove all sources of contention. For instance, while the data
may be useful for updating and improving both of the dominant models used to represent
groundwater resources in Canterbury (Aqualinc vs bathtub), the points of distinction between the
two will remain. The metering data alone is unlikely to remove all uncertainty associated with the
estimation of the connectivity of various aquifers beneath the Canterbury plains.
Furthermore, as argued by Porter (1996) and Stone (1997), all numbers are open to manipulation
and interpretation, regardless of how accurate the process for obtaining them. As can be seen in the
farmers’ construction of identity as responsible water users, and the representation of the
groundwater through models, the numbers appear to be already being enrolled to push the direction
of future policy decisions to favour (or at least to minimise the harm to) the water users. As a result
of the new farmer identity, the dominant issues in the RSGAZ (over-allocation, effects of abstraction
on lowland streams) have been reframed as a product of failures in the management of the resource
as a whole, rather than an aggregate of failings at the farm scale. However, this research has also
demonstrated that the threat of ECan exercising its sanctioning power is enough to construct a
second identity for the farmers, changing from environmental guardians to protecting their access
rights to exploit the resource. These divergent identities show how the distribution of power that a
standard creates, alters the configurations of natural and social orders.
Thus, with the broader context of freshwater resource management in a state of flux both at the
regional and national level, how the identities, representations, institutions and discourses that have
been co-produced with the introduction of the Regulations in Canterbury will shape policy decisions
remains in the future remains uncertain. However, it is considered likely that as a more substantial
data set is built up, the constructed identities, representations, discourses and institutions that have
been identified through this research at this early stage of the Regulations life will evolve greater
authority and legitimacy in time.
The empowerment of the farmers that has come through the ability to use the metering data as
proof is considered to be one consequence of the Regulations with the greatest potential for future
implications. In a resource management system that already places a great deal of emphasis and
value on quantification, the Regulations have provided the farmers with their own data that they can
use to more actively participate in the number-centric debate around how best to improve
freshwater management. Thus, they may be able to negotiate the future direction of policy change
so that it is to their benefit, or so that they are at least not any worse off. For example, although the
95
farmers wish to see the data used to improve resource management decision making by informing
the science of predictive models, the research indicates that they will likely oppose any attempt to
push the costs of doing so back onto them as the water users have already invested considerable
amounts of money during the implementation of the water metering programme.
The findings of this research are especially relevant given the reforms to the regulatory framework
that are currently taking place at the national level. In November 2013, the Ministry for the
Environment (MfE) released a discussion document for public consultation on proposed
amendments to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPSFM) 2011 (MfE,
2013b). The NPSFM is the overarching document intended to guide regional councils when setting
objectives within their regional plans. The discussion document released by MfE outlines the changes
to the NPSFM, intended to make it more effective and easier for regional councils to implement at
the regional level. Some of the key amendments include:
•
Requiring councils to implement water accounting systems to monitor water quality and
quantity;
•
A National Objectives Framework including standard values and attributes is to be developed
to assist councils in negotiating the outcomes for freshwater wanted by their communities;
•
National bottom lines for the two compulsory values (ecosystem health and human health);
and
•
Providing standardised measuring requirements for long term monitoring of water quantity
and quality parameters.
These proposals indicate that the ‘measure-to-manage’ approach to freshwater resources is set to
continue in the future, with the Regulations also set to become increasingly important as a key
component of any water accounting system. The co-production of natural and social orders, as has
been seen with the introduction of the Regulations in the RSGAZ, can therefore be expected to
continue as these standardised management tools are implemented by regional councils across the
country.
96
Chapter 7 Conclusions
In this final chapter, the main findings from this research are summarised in terms of the identities,
representations, institutions and discourses that describe both the freshwater resource and those
social actors who use and manage it, that have been identified as being co-constructed as a result of
the intervention of the Regulations. The role that the Regulations have played in this co-production
of what is known, and how it is known is also summarised. The chapter will be concluded by a brief
discussion as to the limitations of the research and possibilities for future research.
7.1 Conclusions drawn from this research
This research has sought to evaluate the role that the Regulations have played in reconfiguring
previously taken for granted relationships between stakeholders and the environment within the
context of freshwater management in Canterbury. In examining the Regulations through the
conceptual lens of co-production, it has been found that there have been multiple re-orderings of
both natural and social systems along the four pathways that the literature identifies as being
common sites for co-production: making identities, making representations, making discourses and
making representations (Jasanoff, 2004c; Reardon, 2001; Swedlow, 2011). As with standards, these
exist within a nested network that acts to stabilise the dominant constructions.
7.1.1 Making identities
The Regulations are a filter type standard that is intended to sort the acceptable from that which is
not. Thus in being implemented into Canterbury where monitoring of water consents has been
historically low and therefore difficult for ECan to enforce compliance, the Regulations have
immediately constructed identities for the abstracted water as either being compliant or not.
Furthermore, the literature dictates that due to symmetry, it is impossible to separate standards for
things from standards for people (Busch, 2000, 2011; Porter, 1996). It is this symmetry of standards
that facilitates the co-production of natural and social orders, as seen with the Regulations, as it is
not only the abstraction of water that is given an identity of compliant or not in the eyes of ECan, but
also the water user. While it is the Regulation’s inherent symmetry and filtration capacity that coproduces natural and social orders, it is the exertion of power and control that they enable, their
path dependence, and their network of supporting standards that has determined the form that
these reconfigurations have taken.
As a tool of governance, standards are always deployed from a position of authority and they also
enable sanctions to be imposed upon the standardised, ranging from a gentle nudge or incentive,
through to penalties backed by the legal system. It is this power and control that is embodied within
97
standards that enables them to both facilitate and constrain the actions of those subject to the
standard. This power is never evenly distributed across the socio-cultural landscape though. As seen
with the Regulations, the distribution of power contributes to the shaping of orderings within
identities, representations, discourses, and institutions. The Regulations undoubtedly increased the
power that ECan already held over water users by allowing greater scrutiny of their behaviour, with
the farmers noticing a corresponding increase in enforcement activities by the regulatory authority.
However, despite this the water users have also been empowered against ECan with the metering
data enabling them to demonstrate to ECan that they are indeed operating within their consented
limits. A new identity has therefore been created for the farmers as good and responsible users of
their allocated portions of the resource. For the arable farmers this identity extends further to one of
environmental protector as their unused water remains within the environment, but is protected
from use by others. Yet, the threat that ECan will use the Regulations as justification of exerting their
sanctioning power through the reduction allocations of low water users has created a second identity
for them. They not only have an identity as protectors of the environment, but also as hoarders,
protecting their ability to exploit the resource in the future. In the extreme form, this identity may
have a perverse and unintended consequence of motivating more water use as the farmers seek to
offset the imbalance of power and protect their allocation. These divergent identities have evolved in
response to changes in the distribution of power between ECan and farmers.
7.1.2 Making representations
Importantly, power does not come without risk for those deploying the standards. The deployment
of standards can have unintended consequences. This new responsible water user identity has
enable the issues of the RSGAZ to be framed (by those with the new identity) as a product of poor
management of the resource at the catchment and regional scale, rather than as a collection of
poorly managed individual allocations. In the face of the now empowered water users, ECan could
potentially lose credibility if this new representation of the resource gains legitimacy through
increased scrutiny of ECan’s past decision making.
The subterranean nature of groundwater makes these resources difficult to directly quantify.
However, the portion of this resource that is abstracted for use is in contrast very measureable. The
intention of the Regulations is to take this quantifiable portion to represent freshwater (as a whole)
as a measureable, and thus controllable resource. It is intended to do this through using the metering
data not only to manage and monitor water users’ behaviour, but also to contribute to the science of
predictive modelling. The Regulations are therefore contributing to both what we know, and how we
know it, reinforcing the dominance of the knowledge of technical experts and models in describing
the world through the co-production of representations. This dominance is shown by the assumption
98
embedded within the Regulations that the data will be of most use within ECan’s institution for both
compliance and science purposes. Thus, the use of the data by water users as proof and the
construction of a responsible identity for them is an unexpected consequence of the introduction of
the Regulations.
7.1.3 Making discourses
The Regulations as a standard of quantification also contain embedded assumptions within them as
to the value of the metering data: we would not be investing time and money into the quantification
of water abstraction if there was not some preconceived value placed on the data. These
assumptions become apparent through the power that is granted to the water measurement
technology. In using technology rather than people to measure, it is presumed that the numbers
produced will be value free, objective and therefore have greater legitimacy. The Regulations have
not created the value placed on numbers. Rather they have contributed to reinforcing the existing
path dependence of the freshwater management systems in Canterbury, as seen by the ‘rule-bynumbers’ discourse of “we cannot manage what we do not measure”, and the reliance on predictive
models to represent freshwater resources, in the absence of being able to measure them directly.
These discourses are already well entrenched within Canterbury and thus the Regulations have
reinforced the existing orderings of nature as something that can only be truly understood through
the numerical language of technical experts in society. Thus, the Regulations embed, deploy and
justify the ‘measure-to-manage’ discourse.
As demonstrated in the results, the interviewed stakeholders see the metering data as a way to
reduce some of the uncertainty and conflict that has characterised freshwater management in the
past. Particularly, the conflict that has arisen in relation to the two competing modelled
representations (‘bathtub’ versus Aqualinc) and the degree of connectivity that exists in the
groundwater system in the region. However, as Stone (1997) and Porter (1996) argue, despite the
metering data being accurate with a perceived authority, numbers are always open to interpretation.
The intended consequence of the Regulations is to improve the science of predictive models to assist
the stakeholders move beyond what Weber et al. (2011) refers to as a ‘science impasse’ in the
RSGAZ. However, due to the complexity of the science, the multiple sources of uncertainty, and the
history of contention between the stakeholders the results of this research support his conclusion
that improved science alone is unlikely to lead to better freshwater management outcomes (Weber
et al., 2011). Thus, the discourse of “we cannot measure what we do not measure” is indicative of
past conflicts and settlements that have occurred in Canterbury, which have stabilised the current
problems in freshwater management as originating from a lack of information. Both those who think
99
the RSGAZ is over-allocated and those who do not think that the data will in time reveal the other
opposing party to be wrong.
7.1.4 Making institutions
One of the contributing factors to a standard’s path dependence is the complexity of the network of
other standards that support it, as no standard exists in isolation. The existing network of standards
is one of the reasons that few major challenges arose during the implementation of the Regulations
in Canterbury beyond addressing the vast number of consents in a short time frame. Reardon (2001)
argues that the co-production of nature and society never occurs de novo, but rather is always on the
basis of past experiences, contestations and settlements. This can be seen in the differences in
construction of the institution of practice of the Regulations between the arable and dairy farmers in
their day to day farm operation. For the dairy farmers operating large-scale, sophisticated irrigation
infrastructure that is necessarily highly standardised and largely hands-off, the structured rules of the
Regulations fit well within how their farms are operated, complimenting existing processes of
farming at a distance (monitoring systems online for instance). Furthermore, these irrigation systems
are operated much closer to their limits as irrigation is a necessary rather than a supplementary
activity. The Regulations have acted to facilitate better management, by enabling the farmers to
more accurately manage their water use within their limits. In contrast, the arable farmers tended to
use less sophisticated technologies that required more manual input. As such, they are out ‘living
one’s field’, receiving first-hand experience of their water use on their land. Thus, institutionally the
metering data neither facilitates nor constrains the arable farmers’ behaviour or relationship to the
resource. The complexity of the system of standards into which the Regulations has been introduced
at the individual farm scale has therefore altered how this institution of practice has been
constructed.
Furthermore, the Regulations have not only contributed to existing path dependence by reinforcing
existing standards such as resource consents in freshwater management as well as requiring large
investment by water users, ECan and industry. It has been found that they are also likely to continue
to further entrench this path dependence in the future. ECan is developing a new standard for the
management of the metering data, to better facilitate its use in the science of predictive modelling.
By increasing the network of standards that support the Regulations in this way, ECan is not only
strengthening the path dependence of the Regulations, but is also strengthening its own institutional
role in the management of freshwater resources in Canterbury. The construction of this new data
management standard also further reinforces the ‘measure-to-manage’ discourse and the
dominance of the expert modelled representation of the resource.
100
This study has demonstrated that the introduction of the Regulations in the RSGAZ has reconfigured
the orderings of natural and social systems along the pathways of making identities, making
representations, making discourses and making institutions. It is the inherent symmetry of the
Regulations that have enabled this co-production as they filter what is acceptable and what is not for
both the abstracted water and those that abstract it. It is the power and control, the path
dependence and the existence of a network of other supporting standards that have shaped the
form of these reconfigurations that have taken place in response to the introduction of the
Regulations. This new standard has reinforced some existing orderings such as the dominance of
quantification and modelled representations and the measure-to-manage discourse for
understanding freshwater resources. However, it has also created a perhaps unexpected
redistribution of power, particularly amongst the social actors. The relationship between water users
and ECan has been highly contentious in the past, and thus it is expected that the empowerment of
water users will enable them to determine the direction of future policy in a manner that is either to
the benefit of, or at least minimises the negative impacts on water users. If the water metering data
continues to support the representation of the resource as a poorly managed whole, as opposed to a
collection of poorly managed parts, the path dependence of the whole system might require past
points of conflict and settlement to be renegotiated before changes to the freshwater management
system in Canterbury can be made.
While the introduction of the highly standardised TCC technology in northern Victoria saw the
emergence of clear winners and losers amongst those involved, this has not happened to the same
extent in the RSGAZ with the introduction of the Regulations. But, although the relationships
between the social actors and the environment have undoubtedly been altered by the introduction
of this new standard, the extent to which these changes impact on the management of freshwater in
Canterbury is likely to become more apparent in the future as a full metering data set is built up, and
the data starts to be really be examined in terms of justifying policy decision making.
MfE has recently proposed changes to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater 2011 which seek
to increase the standardised monitoring and measurement of not only water quantity, but also water
quality across New Zealand. While the importance of accurate data cannot be underestimated in
better understanding a complex issue such as freshwater management, the results of this research
demonstrate that the introduction of a standard for quantifying an aspect of the resource will never
only measure just that aspect. It will also simultaneously measure the social actors involved, leading
to a reconfiguration of both social and natural orders. Thus, for future quantification tools to be
effective, it is important that they acknowledge this symmetry of standards. Failure to do so may
lead to unintended consequences.
101
7.2 Research limitations and future research direction
7.2.1 Limitations of the theoretical framework
Co-production does not provide a comprehensive theoretical framework, but rather it offers a lens
through which the world can be viewed, to provide a descriptive richness for the interpretation of
complex phenomena (Jasanoff, 2004a). As a conceptual framework, Jasanoff (2004a) argues that it is
not intended to provide deterministic causal explanations and thus, it is limited in its ability to predict
future outcomes (Swedlow, 2011). Thus although co-production has enabled this research to
examine the role that standards play in reconfiguring natural and social order in the context of the
management of freshwater resources in Canterbury, the framework has only allowed limited
capacity for predicting how these orderings might be further altered in the future, and the effects of
these future configurations on the broader freshwater management policy context. Possible
implications for the future made during the discussion of the results in the broader context are
therefore largely conjecture.
7.2.2 Limitations of the research methodology
The main limitations to the study outside of the constraints of the theoretical framework were in
relation to the methodology and the time constraints of the research period.
Due to the requirements of the human ethics approval, enrolment of participants was on the basis of
opting-in to the research process. The participants that took the time to respond to the request for
participation are therefore likely to be those who are already actively engaged with processes to do
with the management of freshwater in the region. Particularly for the farmers, the fact that those
approached as part of the research belonged to water user groups would indicate that they are
proactive in this sense. Although during the interviews some participants referred to the “grumpy old
men” farmers in the RSGAZ who oppose all attempts to regulate their behaviour, none of the farmer
participants that were interviewed could be considered to be of this type. The interviews conducted
therefore might not have covered the whole range of opinions held amongst the farming community.
Another limitation related to the participants is the lack of industry service providers that took part.
As described in section 4.3.2, it is thought that a major windstorm that struck Canterbury during the
data collection phase resulting in widespread damage to irrigation infrastructure is likely the cause of
the poor response from the industry. Unfortunately because the research had to be completed
within a year, it was not feasible to wait until the end of the irrigation season to re-approach those
from the industry at a less busy time. Interviewing more industry service providers may have
provided a greater level of detail into the relationship between the industry and both ECan and water
users and how this has changed as a result of the Regulations.
102
7.2.3 Possible future research
The limitations of this research as described above could be addressed through further research
involving a greater number of participants, particularly including farmers from more diverse
backgrounds and a greater number of industry professionals.
This study has focused on the introduction of the first of three stages of the Regulations. The
deadline for the second stage of implementation for those whose abstractions are of between 10
and 20 litres/second is in November 2014, and the third stage (for those five to ten litres/second) has
a deadline of November 2016. Investigating these later stages through the same co-production lens
could therefore add a greater level of complexity to the analysis done in this study with regard to the
Regulations. Although the stage that has been studied here includes the vast majority of the
allocated water in Canterbury, the latter stages may present unique issues. For instance, the cost of
implementing the Regulations for farmers of smaller takes is likely to be much greater proportionally
to the benefit they get from the abstracted water due to the economies of scale.
Furthermore, this study has only focused a representative catchment for the Canterbury region. The
Regulations have been implemented nationally and therefore further studies could be undertaken in
other regions of New Zealand to enable comparison to help determine why the orderings that have
been co-produced in Canterbury have arisen.
103
Appendix A
The Resource Management (Measurement and Reporting of Water
Takes) Regulations 2010
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
Accessed on 24/02/2014, from
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2010/0267/latest/DLM3174201.html?src=qs
111
Appendix B
Interview questions
Questions used for semi-structured interviews with water users
Background – Describing your farming operation
1. Can you please describe your farming operation? E.g. farm size, production type, length of
time the farm has been in this production type.
Water use
2. How many water permits do you have? When were your permits issued?
3. How many water takes does this correspond to? What type of take are they (e.g. ground or
surface water)?
4. What activities do you use the water for?
The Regulations and water measurement
5. How many of your water takes/permits fall under the requirements of the Regulations? Did
you have any form of water measurement in place before the Regulations came into force?
6. Can you describe how the water measurement on your water permits takes place (e.g. type
of meter/measuring device used)? Who holds and manages the records of water use?
7. Was establishing water measurement on your system a straight forward process? What
were the challenges and how did you deal with them? Have you had any on-going issues with
the water measurement system?
8. Have there been any direct benefits to your operation from the introduction of the
Regulations? Is the measurement data useful for your operation? Are you planning to alter
how you operate to make use of this information?
9. Do you feel that there has been adequate support for water users during the implementation
of the Regulations? Where has this support come from?
Implications of water measurement on freshwater management
10. Has knowing your actual water usage changed your perspective on the resource? Do you use
more or less water than you thought? Are you likely to use more or less water as a result of
knowing your actual usage?
112
11. Do you feel that your water use is now under scrutiny? Are you interested to know how your
water use compares to others?
12. What do you think the effect of the Regulations will be on the allocation of water in the
Selwyn district? Do you think the data will be useful in addressing the over-allocation of the
district’s resources?
13. What do you think will happen to allocated water that is found to be not being used?
14. Do you currently take part in any water trading? Does having access to accurate data on
water use encourage you to look into or to begin trade in water? Or do you think there are
still other barriers preventing wide scale water trading to occur?
15. What do you think the benefits of the Regulations are in the context of fresh water
management in NZ?
Questions used for semi-structured interviews with Environment Canterbury
Background – Describing your role
1. Can you please describe your role at council?
2. How do the Regulations relate to your role? Were you directly involved in the
implementation of the Regulations?
3. In your role, do you work directly with other stakeholders involved with the Regulations?
Which ones?
The Regulations
4. Do you believe that there was a need for a national policy around water measurement such
as the Regulations, prior to their implementation?
5. In your opinion what are the key benefits of the Regulations for freshwater management?
6. What are the primary disadvantages of the Regulations?
7. What have been the main challenges during the implementation of the Regulations?
8. Do you believe that the Regulations allow a greater level of scrutiny to occur of water users’
behaviour? Will they also increase the scrutiny of how council allocates freshwater
resources?
113
9. Will the information/data generated through the Regulations about water use be most
useful at the farm/catchment/regional/national scale? What activity around water
management do you think the data will be most useful to (e.g. compliance of consent
conditions, informing scientists/modellers)?
Implications for freshwater management
10. What do you think the effect of the Regulations will be on the allocation of water in the
Selwyn district? Do you think the data will be useful in addressing the over-allocation of the
district’s resources? What effect has the Rakaia-Selwyn consent review process had on the
implementation of the Regulations?
11. Will the information around where and when water is used allow water trading to increase
amongst water users? Or do you think there are still other barriers preventing wide scale
water trading to occur?
12. Do you think that knowing accurately how much water is being used will cause water users
to use their allocated water more efficiently? Will it make them more likely to use more of
their allocation over the course of a season?
13. What do you think should/will happen with allocated water that is currently not being used?
Questions used for semi-structured interviews with industry service providers
Background – Describing your role
1. What services do you provide for water metering? Is this a large component of your
business?
2. Did you offer these services prior to the introduction of the Regulations? What role did the
Rakaia-Selwyn consents review process play in terms of you offering water metering
services?
3. In your role do you work directly with other stakeholders involved with the Regulations?
Have you found yourself having to act as a mediator between water users and ECan? How do
you address issues of non-compliance?
The Regulations
4. Do you believe that there was a need for a national policy around water measurement such
as the Regulations, prior to their implementation?
114
5. In your opinion what are the key benefits of the Regulations for freshwater management?
6. What are the primary disadvantages of the Regulations?
7. What have been the main challenges during the implementation of the Regulations?
8. Do you believe that the Regulations allow a greater level of scrutiny to occur of water users’
behaviour? Will they also increase the scrutiny of how council allocates freshwater
resources?
9. Will the information/data generated through the Regulations about water use be most
useful at the farm/catchment/regional/national scale? What activity around water
management do you think the data will be most useful to (e.g. compliance of consent
conditions, informing scientists/modellers)?
Implications for freshwater management
10. What do you think the effect of the Regulations will be on the allocation of water in the
Selwyn district? Do you think the data will be useful in addressing the over-allocation of the
district’s resources?
11. Will the information around where and when water is used allow water trading to increase
amongst water users? Or do you think there are still other barriers preventing wide scale
water trading to occur?
12. Do you think that knowing accurately how much water is being used will cause water users
to use their allocated water more efficiently? Will it make them more likely to use more of
their allocation over the course of a season?
13. What do you think should/will happen with allocated water that is currently not being used?
115
References
Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (2000). Sorting things out: classification and its consequences. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: MIT press.
Busch, L. (2000). The moral economy of grades and standards. Journal of Rural Studies, 16(3), 273283. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0743-0167(99)00061-3
Busch, L. (2010). Can Fairy Tales Come True? The Surprising Story of Neoliberalism and World
Agriculture. Sociologia Ruralis, 50(4), 331-351. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9523.2010.00511.x
Busch, L. (2011). Standards: recipes for reality. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Canterbury Regional Council. (2010). Review of consent conditions of 523 Water Permits to take and
use groundwater from within the Rakaia Selwyn Groundwater Allocation Zone. Retrieved 12
August, 2013, from http://ecan.govt.nz/publications/General/rakaia-selwyn-reviewsdecision-120210.pdf
Canterbury Regional Council. (2012). Proposed Canterbury Land & Water Regional Plan, Section 5.
Retrieved 5/12/2013, 2013, from http://ecan.govt.nz/publications/Plans/lwrp-sectionfive.pdf
Carolan, M. S. (2006). Sustainable agriculture, science and the co-production of ‘expert’ knowledge:
The value of interactional expertise. Local Environment, 11(4), 421-431. doi:
10.1080/13549830600785571
Castree, N. (2001). Socializing Nature: Theory, Practice, and Politics. In N. Castree & B. Braun (Eds.),
Social nature: theory, practice, and politics Malden, Massachusetts, USA: Blackwell
Publishers Inc.
Castree, N., & MacMillan, T. (2001). Dissolving dualisms: Actor-networks and the reimagination of
nature. In N. Castree & B. Braun (Eds.), Social nature: Theory, practice, and politics. Malden,
Massachsetts, USA: Blackwell Publishers Inc.
Central Plains Water Ltd. (2014). A significant construction project about to be undertaken.
Retrieved 6 January, 2014, from http://www.cpwl.co.nz/scheme-development/schemedesign
Collett, B. (2010). Changing rural water management : social and historical perspectives on the
introduction of regional irrigation technologies. University of Melbourne, Melbourne.
Council of Australian Governments. (2004). Intergovernmental agreement on a National Water
Initiative Retrieved 5 May 2013, from
http://nwc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/24749/Intergovernmental-Agreement-on-anational-water-initiative.pdf
Council of Australian Governments. (2012). National Water Market. Retrieved 31 May, 2013, from
http://www.nationalwatermarket.gov.au/site-information/index.html
Counsell, K., & Evans, L. (2005). Essays in water allocation: The way forward: New Zealand Institute
for the Study of Competition and Regulation.
Cowan, L., Murdoch, H., Linehan, C., & Kaine, G. (2006). Is there a role for extension in regulatory
change? A channel automation case study Australasia-Pacific Extension Network
International Conference.
Creech, W., Jenkins, M., Hill, G., & Low, M. (2010). Investigation of the performance of Environment
Canterbury under the Resource Management Act & Local Government Act. Retrieved 30
May, 2013, from http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/rma/investigation-performanceenvironment-canterbury/investigation-performance-environment-canterbury.pdf
Dear, P. (2004). Mysteries of state, mysteries of nature: Authority, knowledge and expertise in the
seventeenth century. In S. Jasanoff (Ed.), States of knowledge: The co-production of science
and social order (pp. 206-224). London: Routledge.
Department of Sustainability Environment Water Population and Communities. (2009). National
framework for non-urban water metering policy paper. Retrieved 21 March, 2013, from
http://www.environment.gov.au/water/publications/agriculture/pubs/national-frameworkfor-non-urban-water-metering.pdf
116
Duncan, R. (2013). Converting Community Knowledge into Catchment Nutrient Limits: A
Constructivist Analysis of a New Zealand Collaborative Approach to Water Management.
Nature and Culture, 8(2), 205-225.
Environment Canterbury. (2007). Your Environment, Canterbury: Water - the lifeblood of Canterbury.
Retrieved 21 August, 2013, from http://ecan.govt.nz/advice/your-school/lessonresources/Documents/Ebox_WATER_Jul07.pdf
Environment Canterbury. (2013). How are other farmers benefiting from water measuring? .
Retrieved 13 October, 2013, from http://ecan.govt.nz/advice/your-water/watermetering/Pages/case-studies.aspx
Environment Canterbury Groundwater Resources. (2012, 19/9/2012). Rakaia - Selwyn Allocation
Zone Summary Report. Retrieved 14 August, 2013, from
http://ecan.govt.nz/services/online-services/monitoring/groundwater-allocation/zonesummary-reports/Pages/rakaia-selwyn.aspx
Ezrahi, Y. (2004). Science and the political imagination in contemporary democracies. In S. Jasanoff
(Ed.), States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. Oxon, USA:
Routledge.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 19, 219245. doi: 10.1177/1077800405284363
Gunningham, N. (2008). Innovative governance and regulatory design: Managing water resources
Retrieved 16 September 2013, 2013, from http://ecan.govt.nz/publications/Reports/cwmstech-rpt-16-page-3-pages-45-47-water_gunningham_LC0708137.pdf
Gunningham, N. (2011a). Governance, wicked problems and water. In S. Russell, B. Frame & J.
Lennox (Eds.), Old Problems New Solutions: Integrative research supporting natural resource
governance. Lincoln: Manaaki Whenua Press.
Gunningham, N. (2011b). Water governance in Canterbury. In S. Russell, B. Frame & J. Lennox (Eds.),
Old Problems New Solutions : integrative research supporting natural resource and
governance. Lincoln: Manaaki Whenua Press.
Irrigation New Zealand. (2011). Water measurement & reporting industry accreditation program.
Retrieved 22 March, 2013, from
http://www.irrigationaccreditation.co.nz/watermeasurement/assets/Documents/WaterMeasurement/Water-Measurement-Industry-Accreditation-Program.pdf
Irrigation New Zealand. (2013). More than 800 damaged irrigators. Retrieved 25 November, 2013,
from http://www.irrigationnz.co.nz/news/media-releases/more-than-800-damagedirrigators/
Jasanoff, S. (2004a). The idiom of co-production. In S. Jasanoff (Ed.), States of knowledge: The coproduction of science and social order. Oxon, USA: Routledge.
Jasanoff, S. (2004b). Ordering knowledge, ordering society. In S. Jasanoff (Ed.), States of knowledge:
The co-production of science and social order. Oxon, USA: Routledge.
Jasanoff, S. (Ed.). (2004c). States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. Oxon:
Routledge.
Jenkins, B. (2007). Water allocation in Canterbury. Paper presented at the Keynote address to the
New Zealand Planning Institute National Conference, Palmerston North.
Kaljonen, M. (2006). Co-construction of agency and environmental management. The case of agrienvironmental policy implmentation at Finnish farms. Journal of Rural Studies, 22, 205-216.
Kemp, R., & Rotmans, J. (2009). Transitioning policy: co-production of a new strategic framework for
energy innovation policy in the Netherlands. Policy Sciences, 42(4), 303-322. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11077-009-9105-3
Lampland, M., & Star, S. L. (2009). Standards and their stories: How quantifying, classifying, and
formalizing practices shape everyday life. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
Land and Water Forum. (2010). Report of the Land and Water Forum: A fresh start for fresh water.
Retrieved 13 March, 2013, from http://www.landandwater.org.nz/Site/Resources.aspx
Land and Water Forum. (2012). Third Report of the Land and Water Forum: Managing water quality
and allocating water. Retrieved 13 March, 2013, from
http://www.landandwater.org.nz/Site/Resources.aspx
117
Lange, M., Wood, D., & Winstanely, A. (n.d.). Water trading in New Zealand: Grappling with the
issues Retrieved 26 March, 2013, from
http://www.esr.cri.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/ESR/PDF/SocialScience/WaterTradinginNZGr
applingIssues.pdf
Latour, B. (1992). Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artifacts. In W. E.
Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society, Studies in sociotechnical change.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Lennox, J., Proctor, W., & Russell, S. (2011). Structuring stakeholder participation in New Zealand's
water resource governance. Ecological Economics, 70(7), 1381-1394. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.02.015
Lomax, A., Memon, A., & Painter, B. (2010). The Canterbury Water Management Strategy as a
collaborative planning initiative: a preliminary assessment. Lincoln, New Zealand: Lincoln
Ventures Ltd.
Maiello, A., Viegas, C. V., Frey, M., & D. Ribeiro, J. L. (2013). Public managers as catalysts of
knowledge co-production? Investigating knowledge dynamics in local environmental policy.
Environmental Science & Policy, 27(0), 141-150. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.12.007
Memon, A., Painter, B., & Weber, E. (2010). Enhancing potential for integrated catchment
management in New Zealand: a multi-scalar, strategic perspective. Australasian Journal of
Environmental Management, 17(1), 35-44. doi: 10.1080/14486563.2010.9725247
MfE, (Ministry for the Environment). (2009). Sustainable Water Programme of Action (2003-2008)
Retrieved 22 March, 2013, from http://www.mfe.govt.nz/issues/water/prog-action/
MfE, (Ministry for the Environment). (2011). Fresh start for fresh water reforms 2011 Retrieved 21
March, 2013, from http://www.mfe.govt.nz/issues/water/freshwater/fresh-start-for-freshwater/
MfE, (Ministry for the Environment). (2013a). Freshwater reform 2013 and beyond. Retrieved 20
March, 2013, from http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/water/freshwater-reform2013/freshwater-reform-2013.pdf
MfE, (Ministry for the Environment). (2013b). Proposed amendments to the National Policy
Statement for Freshwater Management 2011: A discussion document Retrieved 6 January,
2014, from http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/water/proposed-amendments-npsfreshwater-management/proposed-amendments-nps-freshwater-management.pdf
MfE, (Ministry for the Environment). (2013c). Resource Management (Measurement and reporting of
water takes) Regulations 2010 Retrieved 15 April, 2013, from
http://www.mfe.govt.nz/rma/central/measuring-reporting-water-takes.html
Miller, C. A. (2004). Climate science and the making of a global political order. In S. Jasanoff (Ed.),
States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order (pp. 46-67). London:
Routledge.
Moore, S. (2012). The challenges in delivering 1300 new water meters. Paper presented at the
Irrigation Australia Conference, Adelaide. http://irrigation.org.au/documents/publicationsresources/conference_papers_2012/The_Challenges_in_Delivering_1300_New_Water_Mete
rs.pdf
Myles, F., Mahalingam, A., Beech, J., & Strang, T. (2011). Guidelines for the measurement and
reporting of water takes. from
http://www.irrigationaccreditation.co.nz/watermeasurement/assets/Documents/WaterMeasurement/Guidelines-for-Water-Measurement-and-Reporting-June2011.pdf
Parliamentary Counsel Office. (2012). New Zealand Legislation: Deemed regulations. Retrieved 30
May, 2013, from http://www.pco.parliament.govt.nz/deemed-regulations/
Parliamentary Counsel Office. (n.d.). New Zealand Legislation: Glossary. Retrieved 3 May 2013, from
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/glossary.aspx
PCE, (Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment). (2013). Water quality in New Zealand: Land
use and nutrient pollution Retrieved 7 February, 2014, from
http://www.pce.parliament.nz/assets/Uploads/PCE-Water-quality-land-use-webammended.pdf
118
Porter, T. M. (1995). Trust in numbers: The pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Porter, T. M. (1996). Making things quantitative. In M. Power (Ed.), Accounting and science: Natural
inquiry and commercial reason (Vol. 26): Cambridge University Press.
Reardon, J. (2001). The human genome diversity project: A case study in co-production. Social
Studies of Science, 31, 357-388. doi: 10.1177/030631201031003002
Scholz, R. W., Lang, D. J., Wiek, A., Walter, A. I., & Stauffacher, M. (2006). Transdisciplinary case
studies as a means of sustainability learning: Historical framework and theory. International
Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 7(3), 226-251. doi:
10.1108/14676370610677829
Simons, H. (2009a). Begin at the Beginning: Analysis and Interpretation. Case Study Research in
Practice (pp. 116-135). London: Sage Publications. doi: 10.4135/9781446268322.n7
Simons, H. (2009b). Evolution and concept of case study research. Case study research in practice
(pp. 12-28). London: Sage Publications. doi: 10.4135/9781446268322.n1
Simons, H. (2009c). Listen, look, document: Methods in case study research. Case Study Research in
Practice (pp. 43-67). London: Sage Publications. doi: 10.4135/9781446268322.n3
Simons, H. (2009d). Whose Data are they? Ethics in Case Study Research. Case Study Research in
Practice (pp. 96-114). London: Sage Publications. doi: 10.4135/9781446268322.n6
Star, S. L., & Lampland, M. (2009). Reckoning with Standards. In M. Lampland & S. L. Star (Eds.),
Standards and their stories: How quantifying, classifying, and formalizing practices shape
everyday life. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Stone, D. A. (1997). Numbers Policy paradox: The art of political decision making: WW Norton New
York.
Storey, W. K. (2004). Plants, power and development: founding the Imperial Department of
Agriculture for the West Indies, 1880-1914. In S. Jasanoff (Ed.), States of knowledge: The coproduction of science and social order` (pp. 109-130). London: Routledge.
Swedlow, B. (2011). Cultural coproduction of four states of knowledge. Science, Technology, &
Human Values, 37(3), 151-179. doi: 10.1177/0162243911405345
Thomas, G. (2011). A typology for the case study in social science following a review of definition,
discourse, and structure. Qualitative Inquiry, 17(6), 511-521. doi:
10.1177/1077800411409884
Thompson, C. (2004). Co-producing CITES and the African elephant. In S. Jasanoff (Ed.), States of
knowledge: The co-production of science and soical order (pp. 67-86). London: Routledge.
Tricker, J., Young, J., Ettema, M., & Earl-Goulet, J. (2012). Canterbury Region water use report for the
2010/11 water year (R012/19). Retrieved 6 June, 2013, from
http://ecan.govt.nz/publications/Reports/water-use-report.pdf
Tuinstra, W. (2008). European air pollution assessments: Co-production of science and policy.
International Environmental Agreements, 8(35-49). doi: 10.1007/s10784-008-9064-8
Tuinstra, W., Hordijk, L., & Kroeze, C. (2006). Moving boundaries in transboundary air pollution coproduction of science and policy under the convention on long range transboundary air
pollution. Global Environmental Change, 16(4), 349-363. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.03.002
Waterton, C., & Wynne, B. (2004). Knowledge and political order in the European Environment
Agency. In S. Jasanoff (Ed.), States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social
order (pp. 87-108). London: Routledge.
Weber, E. P., Memon, A., & Painter, B. (2011). Science, society, and water resources in New Zealand:
Recognizing and overcoming a societal impasse. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning,
13(1), 49-69.
Williams, H. (2006). The Rakaia Selwyn groundwater zone – Technical summary of the effects of
groundwater abstractions on stream flows and reliability of groundwater. Retrieved 14
August, 2013, from http://ecan.govt.nz/publications/General/HowardsReport.pdf
Wynne, B. (1988). Unruly technology: Practical rules, impractical discourses and public
understanding. Social Studies of Science, 18, 147-167.
Yin, R. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4 ed.). California: Sage Publications, Inc.
119
120